"The New Girl" is the single best episode that I've seen of Mad Men. It follows Don Draper's descent into self-destruction, as he extends his affair with Bobbi Barrett, and ends up in a drunken car wreck. There are so many great lines in that one. Bobbi is querying a poker-faced Don, and trying to get him to reveal something. She asks him what he wants, and Don responds, The answer is huge. Not big, not enormous, not great--but huge. This is, to me, an incredibly precise use of the human language. That line says so much to me. One day I'll explain.
But for our purposes, the relevant scene takes place much later--after Peggy Olsen has rescued Don and Bobbi from the police station, and is in the midst of a cover-up. Don is an unrepentant sexist. He once almost refused to talk to a client, because she was a woman and spoke out of her place. But he has a special, almost father-daughter, connection with Peggy--one that stands in contrast with his tense relationship with Pete Campbell. You'd think Don would favor Pete, as a fellow member of the good-old-boys network. But then you'd be writing theory. You wouldn't be writing about people. You wouldn't be writing stories.
Throughout the episode Bobbi wonders why Peggy is covering for Don. She isn't in love with him. She's not his secretary. What is she getting out of it? We (but not Bobbi) are given the answer in flashback--Peggy ended last season in labor, having a baby, after not even knowing she was pregnant. She'd just been promoted and become the first woman copywriter at the agency since the War. In the flashback we see she's been committed, and it seems no one can reach her. Don, having done some detective work, tracks her to the hospital. He then pulls from his own tangled history, and heals her. He is not kind. He is not loving. He is not "good." He is as sarcastic and cold as ever. But he tells her the truth that she needs to hear:
Get out of here and move forward. This never happened. It will shock you how much it never happened.This is not good advice for being a better person. But Peggy doesn't want to be a better person. She wants to be equal. Equality, for her, is the right to be as craven, as ambitious, and power-hungry as any man. In that business, forgetting is essential. Don is a sexist. But his sexism is not the end of his humanity. His humanity relates to Peggy, as someone on the come-up. His humanity allows him to dismiss women as a class, and yet respect Peggy's ambition, even become the primary agent of it. Consider that here you have a sexist, unwittingly striking a blow against sexism.
This is not unfamiliar to me. If you had to quantify how many men are actually sexist, no number would really shock me. I'd argue with 100 percent. But I'm a man who when passed by an attractive woman on the street has to consciously think, "Dude, don't leer at that chick's ass." It doesn't always work. I'd argue with 100 percent, but not with any real certainty.
If you had to quantify the number of heterosexuals who were homophobic, I'd argue against 100 percent, also. But I'm a man who had to learn my way out of the word "fag"--it took years, not months, to get right. I'd argue, but not with any real certainty.
If you told me that 100 percent of the Boule, the Links and Jack and Jill look down on lower-class black folks, indeed, believe that they deserve to be where they are, I'd argue. But I'm a man who still laughs at "Niggers vs. Black people. And Jack And Jill can spot my ghetto-ass a mile away. I'd argue, but not because I took offense.
When you're not on the business end of an -ism, it's always easy to underestimate the malice of its employers. When you're a part of that class of employers, it becomes even easier.
You know what this is. I've written repeatedly about how racism can be a problem in a society with seemingly no racists, how racism--out of all the isms--became the province of cannibals, ogres, people existing one rung above the rapist, and child molester. Some of this is our fault--dramatizing the depravity of Southern racists was a brilliant political strategy. But the unexpected upshot is that whites who know they'd never sic a dog on a kid for the crime of crossing a street, can sit at home and say "Well if that's racism, I know I'm not that." It'd be as if our thoughts of sexism revolved strictly around honor-killings and rape. Perhaps they do.
I took a lot of my white readers by surprise with the 35-40 percent figure. I think, in large measure, that's because we don't think about racism in the same way. I think a lot of my white readers think of white racism as a moral failing, not the accumulation of history and set of societal assumptions bearing down on us all. There is a perverse truth in the racist who protests "I have black friends!" We all laugh, but in point of fact, it may well be true. The racists, like the sexists, like the elitist, like the homophobe is very capable of seeing individuals, of seeing beyond their race, of even befriending them, and at the same time not challenging the history, the presumptions that the world has put on them.
It's worth talking, not to me, but to black people who were really raised as minorities, blacks who grew up in white neighborhoods, and went to white schools. It's not the "Nigger, I hate you" stories that you hear--though there's some of that. Instead you get their white friends telling them, "they're not really black." Or you get their white friends consistently trying to set them up with the only other black guy\girl in the school. (I'm sure some gay cats who've worked in offices, have similar stories.) But these people were their friends, they weren't awful people. And they weren't moral degenerates. A lot of em were the sort of friends you'd want in the trenches with you.
Black people who go out into the wider world don't have the luxury of thinking about racists strictly as societal outcasts, any more than women have the luxury of thinking about sexists strictly as rapists. The society is changing, no question. The world is a less racist place. But this is coming from a start of being an intensely, intrinsically racist place.
I don't know if it was right to cut off comments last week. A few of you didn't appreciate it. But I always shudder when I see people looking for me to talk them out of their racism. I'm always deeply suspicious because what attracts them is this kind of thread, not this kind. They're not so much interested in how we got here, and what it means, as they are in how quickly they can get out. They're tons of writers who are attacking the question from that angle. In the business of race, gender, class--really anything--let me never become one of them.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Come on man, don't we do spoiler alerts on the internet anymore? Joking. Really, though, now that the second season is finally available on DVD, I am finally beginning to catch up. New season starts on August 16.
I don't even know how to respond to this devastatingly beautiful writing and devastatingly intelligent analysis.
This.
God in heaven. Me either, Maya. I feel so privileged to be able to read along with this man's thoughts.
I think you've got at the kernel of it, TNC. You're absolutely right: I thought 35-40% seemed high because I was thinking of people like, you know, George Wallace. But it's not the George Wallaces who insidiously make the quality of one's life worse. It's your friends, who don't even realize what they're doing.
It's a privilege to see the world through your eyes, and therefore be able to see my own world a little differently. Thank you.
TNC, you are awesome. Stop writing such good stuff. I have to get some work done.
Exactly Jennifer D. I was about to write the same thing. This post is completely fascinating. Maybe I'll comment later if I can think or anything interesting to add.
That "this never happened" scene made me gasp out loud when I saw it the first time it aired. Not just because of the brazenness of Draper's (I don't think it's too harsh to call it) sociopathic worldview, but because of what I guess you'd call the shock of recognition. I have long believed in that idea - that you can just crash forward on pure rage-fueled momentum and get what you want by making people give it to you, without worrying about whether they respect your or fear you or hate you or, really, if they think about you once you leave the room at all. But I recognize, because I've had discussions about this with folks who are not (like me) white and male and straight, that this attitude is definitely rooted in white privilege. Even today in 2009 it's not as available an option to others as it is to me.
"Get out of here and move forward. This never happened. It will shock you how much it never happened."
I'd argue that Draper's worldview is not strictly in the realm of white privilege. As a young gay black male, I can honestly say that when i watched that scene, I saw myself in that comment...I see everyone in that comment.
Exactly. Well not "exactly" in that I am not a gay or black. But yeah, exactly.
That scene literally gave me the chills, and I can absolutely see everyone in that comment.
There was some bit going around the internets recently about finding the perfect yearbook quote. A bunch of people threw out a bunch of jokes. One person threw out this quote from Mad Men. It was perfect. The best line from one of the best episodes of TV I can remember.
Psst,
"A dialogue (sometimes spelled dialog) is a conversation between two or more people. It is also a literary form in which two or more parties engage in a discussion."
Now I'll read the post and possibly comment on it.
It's a good idea to remember that good people do bad things. Smart people do stupid things. Bad people do good things. And dumb people do smart things.
I like this post but I have to quibble for a moment.
1) First let me get the Mad Men thing out of the way. TNC, I think you are totally misunderstanding the character that is Don Draper. The same Jewish woman who he thought spoke out of line and then had an affair with is the same woman who, I think, explained his character best. When he was quizzing her about her Jewishness, she said, to paraphrase "Something tells me you know what it's like to be on the outside - to not be part of the group. " (I probably butchered that but couldn't find it) Don is far from a Good Ole Boy. He is the son of a hooker! It seems clear that he's taken up the good ole boy persona to survive, but he was looked down on by entitled good ole boys like Pete Cambell for much of his life and he still resents them. He identifies with Peggy because she comes from outside the network and is trying to get in.
2) And that leads me to my second point. Don is a sexist, sure. But you said it so authoritatively in your post as if it defines him as a human. Sure, he's got plenty of sexist prejudices, but he can see past them just like people can see past their racial prejudices. If we are going to classify as Racist anyone who has any prejudices or politically incorrect thoughts, then it's probably much closer to 100% than 35 or 40%. Using one term, Racist, seems a bit reductive. I admire your ability to see the the complexity and nuance in people. But throwing around percentages about who is a Racist seems a little inconsistent with that.
Hope that comment didn't seem hostel as I am a huge fan.
Holla,
Freddy
Freddy,
Do you think Don Draper has the same dreams for his daughter that he'd have if she were ten years old now? Do you think he'd use women the same way? He can't see past them all. And that's okay, he's who he is. But hell yes, he's sexist. It's part of him.
And the 30%-40% was a specific kind of racism.
I think Freddy hit on something here about Draper not truly being part of the good-old-boy network. He's faking it; he's living a lie.
This ties in to the post from earlier today about how Jewish, Irish, and Italian people have gone from being "non-white" to "white," and how Hispanics will likely follow, but blacks won't. "Whiteness" partially comes down to how easily other people can tell you're not white.
Don Draper may have been the son of a hooker, but with a few lies, he was able to convince the Madison Avenue community that he belonged. A Hispanic person with a thick accent may not be able to pull that off, but their child may be able to some day. A black person can't.
As humans, we all often feel like we don't quite fit in. Whether it's in a classroom, a business meeting, or a party, we sometimes think everyone belongs except for us, as if one misstep could expose us as a phony. It may because we're of a different race than most of the other people, it may be because we come from a different socioeconomic background, a different religion, or some much more subtle difference. But for people who appear "white," nobody else in the room knows that those differences exist.
Your paraphrase of what I said:
The direct quote of what I actually said:
I don't mind the disagreement, but come on. My kid was late for art class, over this post. Give me a fair read.
"My kid was late for art class, over this post."
I hope to God you had the foresight to come up with a better explanation if you talked to the teacher.
Good point. I was in a rush to type the comment. I take that portion of it back. My main point was with respect to who he is and how his sympathies in fact lie with those not part of the network.
PS - wish my parents took me to art class as a kid. Sigh.
I'm strugglign wiht how to explain my reaction as well.
I get where TNC is comign from, but I still don't quite agree.
I don't think it is so much than Don is completely sexist, by our standards he certainly is, but by teh standards of other men in his position in his era he might be less sexist, no one else would have promoted Peggy for example. And lets be honest he doesn;t treat other men all that well either.
I think it is rather that Don lumps people into 2 groups, people he respects and everyone else. The respected group is very small, I think it consists of the wife of the real Don, Peggy, Joan, some of the other creative types at work, Roger and maybe a couple others. His girlfriends fall into the everyone else category, meaning they are to be used and that is all they are worth. Initially he puts the Jewish woman into this category and finds out too late that she should be in the respected category.
The comedians wife thinks she is in the respected category and gets a rude awakening when she finds out she isn't.
A lot of people think they are in the respected group and get similar rude awakenings, Betty, Duck, etc. Pete wants more than anything to make it into that group.
The argument is, then, is that Draper can only be judged by the standards of his peers. By those lights, there are no sexists. And by those lights, you should most certainly not agree with this posts.
But let's be clear--Don Draper is a man who grabbed a woman by her hair, pulled her back, reached up her dress, forcibly inserted his hands into her privates and told her, "Do what I say."
Perhaps that is the act of non-sexist. Possibly many of Draper's peers would agree. But I don't think many women would. Another view argues that people who hold awful views about whole subsets, are still capable of benevolent acts-- even benovelent acts toward the people who they hold those views about.
Of course not,
But you cut off the rest of my comment, Don treats most of the men he interacts with just as badly. Not in a sexual way of course, but with an equal level of disrespect.
I think that is the defining characteristic of Don's interactions with people; does he feel they are worthy of his respect or not. He He would never treat Peggy or Joan the way he treats Bobbie. He would never treat men he respects the way he treats Duck, and so on.
Beautiful. In so many ways these posts are why I read you. I see myself in the mirror looking back through different eyes.
"I think a lot of my white readers think of racism as a moral failing, not the accumulation of history and set of societal assumptions bearing down on us all."
If I learned anything from growing up white on the res, it's that racism isn't a moral failing it's a human reaction to inhuman circumstances. Prejudice knows no color, creed, gender, or class. One of the problems I have with veiwing the human experience soley through the lense of race, class, and gender is that it gives different names to the same basic urge. People, for whatever reason, have an urge to band together and say "we is us and you aint us so get the hell out of here." In these circumstances its never the label that's the problem, but the underlying feeling which the label attempts to describe. Sometimes when we name something we fail to completely understand it. Often the conversation ends at saying something is racist, sexist, ableist, ethnocentric, xenophobic, et cetera ad nauseum, without ever trying to understand why something is the way it is. I think one of the most important steps, which you do so well here, is to seperate the label from the thing itself. I have been of the opinion for a long time that just because we know what to call something that doesn't necessarily mean we know what it is. Likewise, on the other side of the coin just because we know what something is doesn't mean we know what to call it.
Another winner, Sorn. If the Webby Awards offered a best supporting commenter award, I'd nominate you.
"Beautiful. In so many ways these posts are why I read you. I see myself in the mirror looking back through different eyes."
Also beautiful. I see myself in the mirror too, and however different TNC's experience has been from mine, I understand on some level. I don't want that to sound relativist. But just that I see the history--am hungry to understand it. I see the injustices, large and small, that he and others point out. I've felt them, though not always the same way. And I love the exchange for these kinds of breakthrough moments.
To quote terrence
homo sum: humani nihil a me alienurn puto
I am a person, nothing of humanity (pertaining to human affairs) do I believe to be seperate from myself.
alienurn should be Alienum hence alien, foreigner, etc.
Sorn-- you put my thoughts into words beautifully.
This. The ending I'd long envisioned for a Watchmen movie -- keeping the "alien" subplot, which the real movie didn't -- had the villain going even further than he did in the book in explaining the reason for his plot: to give humans, hard-wired to define themselves by who they weren't, an Other so other as to make the petty differences between people fade into nothingness.
Probably would have been way too much exposition, though.
Good.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. Thank you Sorn.
Pontchartrain Girl, this is also why I'm here.
I can only second you here. Thanks for this.
I thought you were pretty brave for that other thread. I found the humor mildly funny and I wasn't offended, but I could see how people might be. I think the trick is to be so funny that while people might be offended, they are laughing too hard to be outraged.
As a kid I looked a lot more Asian than I do now. And one of the things that really got me fighting mad was to be called a Chink. I remember, after moving from a multiracial neighborhood to a primarily white one, being called that, and beating the poor kid until he agreed to call me a Jap. If I was going to be called a racial epithet, it was for damn sure going to be the right one.
I know I am racist because I know I am lazy. I'm not the sort of sour pathetic racist that seeks to excuse my own personal failures by blaming a race of people for my problems, but I find that I engage in racist thoughts and attitudes to the degree that am intellectually lazy, which, being a lazy person is often.
The one thing I really do not like is being unjustifiably called a racist. A few years back I got hired to run a sound stage. I was replacing a black man who had major problems with drugs and alcohol. He didn't even know he was being replaced because he was out on a binge. He came back and talked the owner into letting him stay on, convincing him it was a two man job. From that moment on, he did everything he could to sabotage me and get me fired, all the while "playing the race card" on me, suggesting to my face that I didn't like him because he was black.
Fortunately for me, he sabotaged himself, because he was an alcoholic and addict that couldn't get honest with himself. His drinking and drugging picked up again and pretty soon he was out on his ass. The funny thing is that I'm a recovering addict (I'll celebrate 16 years in three days) and I'm fairly open about it. He could have asked me for help. Instead he actually tried to make this part of his case against me.
It was seriously irritating, though, to be accused of racism in an unwarranted manner, to have him tell coworkers and clients that I was racist, etc. I didn't fight him or engage him on any of this, but it still rankled and I often felt that I had to justify myself to others for things I didn't do or say.
Does that make sense? I admit that holding racist ideas is a character defect of mine, and outgrowth of intellectual laziness. But I get pissed off at being called, unjustifiably, a racist.
Oh, and I can go "some of my best friends are blacks" one better. I worked on Hollywood Shuffle. I've been in Robert Townsend's house! Yay me!
That episode of Mad Men blew me away almost as much as this post. I'm not quite sure what to say, except yes, you're on to something.
And, funnily, I've only been reading this blog for a little more than a month, but I remember that "History through the Veil" post. It's what made me a daily reader.
Is "Boule" a misspelling of "Bougie".
Because my Universal translator, otherwise known as Urban Dictionary, doesn't have the word.
As for your emphasis on history I appreciate it.
However, in fairness to those writers who downplay history regarding race issues I can sorta understand their point. If we focus on the "Secesh" taking free blacks at Gettysburg and turning them into slaves we may lose focus on the "baby standing on the corner selling weed".
I'm sorry. I had to channel Dave Chappelle talking about the ghetto.
The truth is likely somewhere in between. Remember the past. Learn from it. Try to understand human frailty. Then focus on the goal. Possibly one person at a time.
In 1983 in a 3 way primary and then two way general election Harold Washington was elected Mayor of Chicago. He barely won and there was massive white resistance to his election. Four years later he ran again and while his percentage of the white vote only went up slightly the actual numbers of people who voted against him was much lower. That's progress.
It may not be the soul wrenching love one another progress we want to see, but it is better than what happened in 1983.
My guess is that lasting change generally happens over a long time.
There are millions of people in this country who voted for President Obama who would not want to see him dating one of their relatives. Yet they voted for him. That's progress.
The boule refers to Sigma Pi Phi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigma_Pi_Phi). It's like the Black Skull & Bones.
Thanks. I had no idea.
Since Skull and Bones supposedly have the skull of "Geronimo" on display does Sigma Pi Phi have any skulls?
I could go through a litany of Confederate pols and generals who would be good candidates for "skull-dom".
No! Boule is a group while bougie is just snotty black folks like my parents who put us in Jack and Jill so that we wouldn't be the only black person at our own birthday parties when we were young.
I feel you. My mom had to invite the Asian kid to mine so I wouldn't be the only white person at my birthday parties. He was the closest thing to Caucasian available. :)
IP, during the POTUS campaign last year my favorite anecdote came from a "New Yorker" story. According to the writer, two young White people were canvassing for Obama, somewhere in the deep South. At one house, an older woman opened her door to the couple and before she answered their "may we ask who you will be voting for" question, the woman at the door hollered back into her house "Honey! Who're we vottin' fer?" Back came a masculine voice "We're votin' fer the nigger!" If the story was actually true, more than any others, I was grateful for their votes and the many others like them on election night. Grateful and proud to be an American.
As a woman, I feel qualified to state that having to concentrate on not leering at women's rear ends does not make you a sexist. And as a woman who has nearly crashed her car a couple of times watching shirtless male track team members run by, I will even go so far as to say that occasionally failing in your attempt not to leer does not make you a sexist. It's not until you (A) Leer; (B) Comment; and (C) Expect your clever commentary to actually get you somewhere with the woman, that you become a sexist.
What if you only (A) and (B), but are fully aware that the commentary will get you nowhere?
Ha, I think it depends on whether your intent is to compliment or insult, how close you are standing, and whether or not you are with your girlfriend, among other factors. Probably a good rule of thumb not to B at all, but I'll admit a neighborly "Woooo, lookin' FINE, baby!" from a couple of dudes in a passing car has occasionally lifted my spirits on a bad hair day.
I think it depends on whether your intent is to compliment or insult.
To your point: every time a black man says something to me on a New York street, it's along the lines of what you noted -- "Woman, you lookin' fine today."
White guys always give a variation of: "Great rack! Can I t*tty-f*ck you?"
And the older you get, the less offended you get, at least in my experience.
Just to clarify, I have rarely, if ever, complimented a complete stranger on how she looks. I just like the fact that you first post suggested I might be able to as long as I don't expect it to work. Do guys that use cliche pick up lines actually expect them to work, or do they simply say them for the amusement of their buddies?
If you are really serious, I think most women would LOVE to have a complete stranger compliment their looks, if (a) it is done in a polite, non-intrusive, complimentary way ("Excuse me, but I just wanted to tell you that you are a very beautiful lady and your smile made my day") and not gross ("Nice rack!"); and (b) it comes across as a sincere compliment, where you don't expect to get anything out of it, and not a pick up line. Personally, I think you are doing a public service by telling people they look good, when it's true: it encourages them to keep up the good work. :)
Firemen turn me into one of those wolves in the old Warner Bros cartoons.
I find that guys do A, but the guys that also do B can't really think that C is plausible. Really? But Stacy, I often think that they must because why else would they B. On the other hand, my friends and I have theory that C must happen sometimes because there are way too many guys doing A, B and C for it to not to...especially in THIS city. We often joked if there were a hollerlympics, many of the contenders would come from NYC.
But yes I also agree as a woman I have definitely done by share of leering. In fact I almost walked into a tree in central park on Sunday when there were numerous shirtless men playing soccer near where I was walking by. I've never felt the need to do B though.
"We often joked if there were a hollerlympics, many of the contenders would come from NYC."
Hollerlympics?! That's the first time I've laughed out loud all day. I'm just imagining what the events would be, and I realize that I would watch the Hollerlympics.
I think that I'm just to start hollering at dudes so they know what it's like to be catcalled by someone they're not attracted to...
"Nice calves, bro!!!"
As a man, I feel qualified to add that if you have to concentrate on not leering at women's rear ends, but you don't have to concentrate on not leering at men's rear ends, that makes you kinda sexist in that you are discriminating on the basis of sex.
Right. And as a gay man who does have to concentrate on not leering at shirtless men, but who just doesn't notice women's rear ends, I admit that I'm kinda sexist ... because just don't interest me in that way, so my glance, and in general my thoughts, tend to fall more on men.
I don't think this is it. The thing is, you can comment and sometimes it's a great thing. The really obnoxious thing is if you comment as though the person you're commenting on is irrelevant to the discussion. If someone tells me tells me "hey, nice tits" and I glare at him, and he says "oh, sorry, that was awful forward of me", I've got no hard feelings and I can even feel retroactively good about the compliment. If he says that, or even "you're lookin fine today" and I give him a look indicating that I didn't appreciate it, and he keeps it up, or tells me I can't take a compliment, or otherwise treats me like a thing whose response to him is irrelevant, well, I don't like that at all.
So many times I've had a man commment on me, and not wanted to hear it, and heard no end of "what's wrong? can't you take a compliment? I was just trying to be nice! Why are you so bitchy?". Way to treat me as a commodity, dude. A very low-priced one, at that.
Maybe, actually, I'm saying the same thing as Lee. It's not that a clever comment won't ever get you anywhere. It's that if you have a sense of entitlement about it, if you don't show some understanding and apology when your clever comment falls flat, that you're a jerk. In my book, anyway.
More than once a complete stranger has said "ma'am, you have such a beatiful smile" and it totally made my day. Made that stranger pretty beautiful, too.
I guess I'm wandering pretty far off topic, which is kind of embarrassing, because this was perhaps the most awesome blog post ever.
I used to talk about this on your old blog, before you sold out to the Man, and nobody found it even slightly interesting then--so I'll repeat.
I think this is spot on: "But the unexpected upshot is that whites who know they'd never sic a dog on a kid for the crime of crossing a street, can sit at home and say "Well if that's racism, I know I'm not that."
But you're writing that as someone on the business end. What I'm interested in, as someone on the other end, an employer of racism, isn't absolution--being a good white or an ally, or wearing sackcloth or any of that. I'm just interested in honesty with myself. Because I don't frankly give much of a shit about people I don't know, except in the abstract.
So when you say that some white readers were surprised by the 35-40% figure, or whatever that was (I stopped reading that thread long before you locked it), I'm surprised by the lack of self-awareness. But it's all of a piece. The difference is the definition. If racism is being Sen. Sessions, then I'm not racist--but it's not, and I am. And--again--I'm not saying that to prove I'm on the right side of history, or to expiate white guilt or any of that shit. I'm saying that because I find myself fascinating, so I dig around in my psyche to see what I might unearth.
I think it's a pity that we use 'racist' as a condemnation instead of an explanation, and that it's so far beyond the pale that saying, 'Yeah, of course I'm racist,' is heard either as a skinhead point of pride or a wormtongued plea for expiation. That's just the starting point, for me personally, the background noise of racism. That's good to know.
And as a Jew, I laugh at conversations about who is or isn't antisemitic. Chances are, if you were raised in a certain culture, you're antisemitic. Hell, -I- am, sometimes. And I'd bet that most blacks are racist, sometimes, too, and gays homophobic, and women sexist. We wanna turn these things into a fight between good and evil, victimizer and victim, and maybe that's sometimes helpful, but in the long term when you establish two camps they're gonna at some point conflict.
"And as a Jew, I laugh at conversations about who is or isn't antisemitic. Chances are, if you were raised in a certain culture, you're antisemitic. Hell, -I- am, sometimes."
Heh indeedy. This Jew worked as a hotel banquet bartender for many years, and bartended my share of kosher functions. I'd say I can be as anti-Semitic as the best of them. In the sense of characterizing people by their Jewishness and nothing else. Not in the sense of wanting to shove Jews in the ovens.
And that, of course, is TNC's point, and why he was right with the 35-40% (or higher) figure and I was wrong to doubt it. If racism is the act (the intellectually lazy act, as someone wisely pointed out above) of simply characterizing someone by their race...then I think everyone's guilty of that to some degree. I think it's human nature.
But if everyone's guilty of it, is there a hope (or a point) in fighting to eradicate it? Is it best to concentrate on the people who want to shove you into the ovens (or into the ghettos or over the wall)? There's a pretty wide spectrum of racist attitudes to take on--do you pick your battles? (I'm not saying you should--I'm asking the question out of genuine curiosity.)
But that doesn't mean that you 'really, really dislike' Jews, which is how TNC put it. His larger point was true, but the way that he put it is simply not true.
"But if everyone's guilty of it, is there a hope (or a point) in fighting to eradicate it?"
I'd say, of course. Just as everyone is guilty of being cranky and mean on occasion. The fact that the world pushes back when you do that- or even gently suggests a change- moderates behavior. It's a major way to learn about ourselves, to be able to perceive and react to other people's reactions to us. When people stop getting pushback when they act like jerks, they can become world-class jerks-on-wheels if inclined. (see Hollywood, powerful bosses with no sense of accountability, Leona Helmsley, etc.)
If almost every time a person did something racist, someone else told them "hey, cut it out", or they recognized, themselves, that they were behaving inappropriately, racist behavior would be a lot rarer, I think. (well, assuming other things were equal). And that's why the being a racist= being just like a klansman construct is a problem. If someone told me I was being a jerk and I could say "but I'm not even close to as mean as the wicked stepmother in Cinderella, so my behavior can't possibly be inappropriate!" and get away with it- well, it would be pretty hard to give feedback. And it's pretty hard to give feedback (that gets heard & acted on) on racist behavior, with that racism=bombing churches idea present.
Yeah, that's just what I was trying to get at--thanks.
And I think it's wholly worthwhile to try to eradicate it in ourselves ... just like every other kind of intellectual laziness, especially the kinds that result in harm. (Do any kinds -not-?)
But prioritizing is important, too. My kind of racism doesn't hurt TNC (hey, look! Now TNC represents all black people!) in any noticeable way. It's too covert for that. It's bundled into assumptions that almost never see the light of day. And the person it hurts most is me, because it limits my view of the world. (And I hesitated to say that--'oh, poor racists, life is so hard for them!'--but I hope my point is clearer, somehow, than my language. I mean unlike even slightly overt kinds of racism, for which this isn't true.)
Ta-Nehisi mentions this, sometimes, too--how hard it is, on some level, to get worked up about racism. I feel the same--and I imagine you do, too--about antisemitism. Oooh, Mel Gibson said something antisemitic, some preacher said something antisemitic. Oh, noes! Let the Professional Victims howl about that. I don't give away my power that easily. And those people aren't a threat to me. They're just exposing their own ignorance.
That's my kind of racism. I've said things to black friends that I'm not willing to recount here, even with an anonymous name on the net, because I find the memory too mortifying. I'm sure they a) knew I'd be there on the big issues and b) couldn't help but lose some respect for me. Which now that I think about it -is- a loss for them. But a bigger loss for me. And I'm sure I do the same things still, wrapped in my teflon ignorance.
So I think we've gotta fight like hell to eradicate overt racism, and not get distracted by the more internal kinds. If the day comes when we've won the former battle, then we can turn toward the latter. But frankly I'd rather see a huge coalition of people fighting institutionalized racism in housing, say, or in the justice system or even among headline writers, even if many of those people were just as racist as I am, than focus on 'who is a racist?' In fact, I think this coalition gets diverted, often, by just that question, because of the toxicity of the word 'racist'. Strikes me as counterproductive. How much does some black guy care if I'm cradling my favorite racist prejudices quietly close to my heart--as long as I'm also a) not in his face with them and b) on the right side of the issues that actually affect his life?
I just can't imagine he cares that much about me. Nor should he.
Here's the thing,
Racism, as Ta-Nehisi describes it, is ethnocentrism at its best. It's the thought that another poster described as "the other". It's the lack of knowledge of another culture; and the fear and resentment that "the unknown" breeds.
In most instances I'm careful of painting someone, or a group of people, as racists. I like to think that most of the time the person is uninformed. And by that logic getting to know me will as Ta-Nehisi put it "see the individual".
If people could learn to think like that, this whole question of discussing race would be a thing of the past.
Good post, TNC.
"I think a lot of my white readers think of racism as a moral failing, not the accumulation of history and set of societal assumptions bearing down on us all."
How does that jibe with the discussion of whether or not the members of the Confederacy were morally wrong vs. victims of their historical circumstances? This just seems like an intrinsically moral discussion (as does sexism, homophobia, etc.) The drawback to demonization is that people need to change and improve, and not to just feel outcast and therefore unbound by any sorts of rules. But these opinions do have moral consequences in our actions.
Speaking as one of the people who took issue with your prior assertion, TNC, I definitely want to say that I agree with the meat of this post. I'd also like to take the opportunity to clarify my previous comments, though. I think the reason people took issue with the 35-40% figure is that the example you used (a man tossing around nigger jokes) is more akin to the sicking-dogs-on-a-kid type of racism than the accumulated-history-and-assumptions type of racism. If you had said 35-40% of white people make erroneous and sometimes unflattering assumptions about black people, I'd have argued that the number was too low. It was the idea that 35-40% of white people are cool with nigger jokes that I was objecting to.
Also...
It's actually threads like "History Through the Veil" that attracted me to your blog. I just don't comment in them because, frankly, I lack the knowledge to say anything useful about the history/literature/etc. involved. When you're just speculating about the implications of current events, though, it seems like more a question of opinion and personal perspective, and thus I feel more comfortable joining the conversation.
I think that's a good point - speculation, fueling more speculation, along with some personal anecdotes that relate...and of course even more rampant speculation. Pretty easy, inviting thread for random opining.
But TNC got something like 150 comments on the other "Veil" thread, which while only half of what he got with folks rattling on about Gates, is a pretty intense discussion. Nothin' to sneeze at...
when I saw that episode it reminded me again of the lie of the "greatest generation" being one that went to war and came back stronger than ever because they fought in a "good" war. Some time ago I shared an account of a black civil rights lawyer I was talking to who to his great surprise found himself in moments of intense grief being experienced by groups of southern white civil war buffs. Also largely forgotten, but still having lasting effects, are the horrible polluted disease-filled ghettos that many european (irish, italian,etc) immigrants found themselves in when they immigrated here. Not to get into all of the economic and martial hardships that still bring people to this country.
My point is not to get into the absurd calculus of comparing/equating suffering but to remind us of the fragility of our humanity. Most people don't get through life without serious psychic scarring. I have worked with some very priveledged people who by all external markers had made it but at serious costs to themselves and their loved ones. Our social/economic system is tearing people up and while we are understandably worried about splitting up the pie we also need to start to take better care of each other. One tested way of improving empathy is to try and understand why someone else has said what they said, before one gets too worked up by what they said. Which means that we might practice trying to take other people as seriously as we often take ourselves. Sorry if this a a bit of a ramble.
Working with families trying to understand generational trauma and disconnect, I've come tot he working conclusion that WW2 was the traumatic event that defined a rigid cohort that caused all the trauma that led to the sexual and cultural dysfunction of the 60's. It brought everyone together, and then they were unable to include their children.
I agree with your basic point, healthy people in our society do not look "successful", and your average family, following the American dream is a friggen mess.
wz, between the depression and the world wars things were much uglier than the conservative fantasies of the 50's would leave one to imagine. I was a bit all over the place above but I do worry that many of the ways by which we measure success, and progress, don't really get into the costs of such success. Its quite something how people who have been exploited, and so know 1st hand that others have a high level of material quality of life because of such exploitation, seem to forget all about it when their turn to gain from it comes. Or worse yet when people who are still being exploited desire the products of exploitation. Understandable in some ways but tragic and worthy of critical/educational responses.
You're right. This episode was so powerful. When Bobbie says to Peggy, "No one will tell you this, but you can't be a man. Don't even try. Be a woman. It's powerful business, when done correctly". It's such a beautiful line.
Yes, it was. I love that idea.
This was my favorite episode too, as much for that conversation between Peggy and Bobbie as the scene between Don and Peggy. It’s interesting that you’ve used this episode as a jumping off point to discuss Don’s sexism, because I thought it was so much more about the women, and the evolution of the role of women in a way that – finally – doesn’t rely solely on the men. We had Bobbie as the new Rachel, Jane as the new Joan, but then Peggy evolving into someone new, someone we hadn’t seen before. So what I found moving about the episode was that Peggy is able to act as Don’s equal, not that Don was able to treat her as one.
It’s true, you never come to something fresh. You always bring yourself.
It's funny because I don't think she acted as his equal. To me, she acted as his mentee, someone she looks up to. That's why Bobbi's line was so essential to me. Who else would come in the middle of the night without leveraging for something?
"If you had said 35-40% of white people make erroneous and sometimes unflattering assumptions about black people, I'd have argued that the number was too low. It was the idea that 35-40% of white people are cool with nigger jokes that I was objecting to."
I think this is exactly right. I don't think most of your commenters would argue that 35-40% of white have some racist tendencies, or some racist issues that they're not even able to admit. Like R. Dave said, that number might be low. But I think it was the way you said 'really, really dislike' that didn't ring true to most people.
I think this is a really great post. I knew it was coming, I just didn't know how long it would take. It seems as though you like to give yourself 3-5 days to process all the thoughts racing around your head before you give us the follow-up post. It makes your blog that much better.
TNC plays warcraft. If I didn't play, I wouldn't know just how large a % of white people are fine and ok with N* jokes, when they don't think there are significant social consequences for making that public.
Maybe it's less than 35%, but it sure isn't insubstantial, and it might well be more than 40%. There was a huge chunk of people in my wife's former guild who broke off to form a guild named "[something] Niggas", and who were fond of using "nigga". She postulated that they left, largely because she wouldn't let then get away with that shit going un-called-out in guild chat. I'm probably going to end up with a similar situation in my current guild, although I suspect it's me that will be leaving since I don't have much purchase there.
I just had a conversation with a teenager from my old guild I didn't realize was in that brigade, who caught me up by using "jewbag" as an insult randomly. He was floored that I would insist he apologize and stop talking like that if I was to continue to run with him.
He catches me later calling out some racist spewage about mexicans in trade chat and gives me a speech about how I should get over myself and not take things so seriously. That there's no consequence for people saying things like that online, so they are just going to do it. I replied that I'm doing my best to provide what consequences I can, and I'd prefer other people to help, rather than hinder me in that process.
In any case, I think what people do in a situation where they are fairly sure that no major social consequences await them is more representative of what they are "OK" with, than what you'd see in physical public places. In WoW I see a small number of people who are real pieces of work, who probably *would* sick dogs on a random child crossing the street. I don't, to my knowledge, know any people like that by name in meetspace.
In WoW, I see a *lot* of people, probably not a majority, but a really large minority, who are quite comfortable with tossing around random racial tropes as long as they find them funny, or they think they will get a rise out of somebody. 35-40% sounds about right to me. Most of them are people I wouldn't meet outside of warcraft, or if I did, they would instantly spot my northeastern hippie culture markers and know full well that they shouldn't say any of that to me.
Linda Ellerbee has a line in And So It Goes about being complimented -- and, at the time, unthinkingly taking it as a compliment -- that she "thought like a man." I strongly suspect the complimenter thought he was being the opposite of sexist...
"It's worth talking, not to me, but to black people who were really raised as minorities, blacks who grew up in white neighborhoods, and went to white schools. It's not the "Nigger, I hate you" stories that you hear--though there's some of that. Instead you get their white friends telling them, "they're not really black." Or you get their white friends consistently trying to set them up with the only other black guy\girl in the school. (I'm sure some gay cats who've worked in offices, have similar stories.) But these people were their friends, they weren't awful people. And they weren't moral degenerates. A lot of em were the sort of friends you'd want in the trenches with you"
YES. This EXACTLY. That was my childhood.
Cosign...It's so disappointing and frustrating, and it doesn't really end. I still get those comments from co-workers and colleagues...ALL THE TIME.
Thirded. This may be part of the reason TNC has the patience to explain things; I was exhausted by 8th grade.
Cosign Again! My mother told me the other day that my little cousin who is I think 12 or 13 and has several little white girlfirends was told by one of them matter-of-factly: "You aren't really like OTHER black people". Like it's supposed to be some sort of badge of honor, "I name you less-Negro than all the others...." I wish I was there for that comment, but I'm glad I wasn't because I feel like when I was done with that little girl AND my cousin I would have had them both in tears. Luckily her aunt was there to clear the air and ask the girl exactly what she meant by "other black people." Not really sure how she responded, but to me the damage is already done.
I also hope she talked to my little cousin and explained to her that this is not the sort of friend that she should have. Someone who thinks she's just acceptable enough because she isn't "black enough." I blame lots of people for that situation, but before I start to air people's laundry out on this board I think I'll just say that my cousin's family hasn't really helped the situation. They actively encourage the friendship of white children and think that showing them their "wealth" sets them as acceptable to these kids. And this is the end result. These are the sort of friends she ends up with.
I had friends of all colors when I was growing up as I do today, I'm glad none of them ever though to let similar words come out of their mouth, even so innocently. I may not have forgiven them.
>_
AAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh. Good on you dragonflyingash for talking to your cousin.
I see this with my cousin too. Rich but pretty delusional kid, goes to a swank-ass private school made for the old-boys network, and just does not get ANYTHING. There is nothing more depressing than a teenager fixated on money and privilege. There is none of that joy of life in him. I've seen him catch disrespect and get blown off by classmates and totally miss it. His parents are too clueless, and encourage this view by constantly talking cars/income/homes/vacations/good schools to the kid. He thinks money alone has elevated him to rightfully belong in those circle, and can't comprehend his own unease at times. It's heartbreaking, and I have no idea how he is going to cope in whatever high-brow university his parents bundle him off to.
Actually I haven't unfortunately gotten the chance ot talk to her. But I hope her aunt (who is around my age) did, after talking to the friend that made the comment. But who knows.
The problem with this whole thing is like you say a lot of these kids end up without friends because they've been misled and deceived into thinking that they needed to be "acceptable" to have a certain group of friends rather than just be themselves. The "you're not really black" thing is just a part of that. It's also very patronizing and condescending when you think about it.
It's really in the top 5 of my list of offensive things people could say to me. I think the appropriate response to that is "Oh really, what would I be life if I were 'really' black? Would I fit some stereotypes for you?" or "Wow, this will be news to my black parents, after all they managed to give birth to a child that is apparently not biologically theirs."
Seems like you might be writing off the friend a little too easily. Couldn't this be a step in her evolution as both a critical thinker and a more socially-conscious person?
Maybe what she meant, and wasn't able to fully express, was "you know, you're not like the way black people are portrayed in the media, which has so far been my primary exposure to people outside my own racial, ethnic, and socio-economic group."
To begin to realize that stereotypes can't account for the individual is often a big step for a developing mind -- one that a lot of people never make. Isn't it better to help such people to bridge the gaps than it is to slap them down for saying something ignorant while reaching for something larger and more real?
Perhaps you are right. Given the context though, the location and my prior experience with this sort of thing I'm inclined to think the worst.
Granted I wasn't there, but I doubt she meant all those things you said in that paragraph. Not for the most part. I understood her tone to be (from a secondhand account, I admit) that she was "better" than most black people she probably encountered. This was in South Carolina. I'm not one of those people than thinks that it's necessary to pigeonhole certain states as racist....but umm it's South Carolina. I grew up there and I'm well-acquainted with people's mindsets. In general they aren't afraid to express their ignorance and openly at that. (Which is fine with me...at least I know who you are)
Furthermore at this stage in the media, while there are still numerous offensive caricatures and stereotypes of black people out there, you can't say that that is ALL that is out there. People in the end choose to believe what they want to believe. This girl also no doubt goes to school with other black children, has met other black adults and not all of them I think were probably Ray-Ray and Pookie from down the street. This is sort of off-topic but it's like I tell my friends who rail about Flava Flav and the countless other embarassing stereotypes of black people on TV and claim that it's damaging to black people's images. Really? If anyone sees Flava Flav and chooses (notice I said chooses) to think that that is how all black people are, then they are at fault much more than Flava Flav is. Because Flava Flav isn't all that is out there even in mainstream media.
Back to the point though, I think sometimes my adult mind does overthink these things. But this girl is well on her way to growing up to the whole "good Negro" syndrome. In other words, "you're my friend because you are one of the good ones." These attitudes don't come out of the blue. She's probably learned it. Not to say it can't change, but I sort of think at that age (13) she's almost old enough to know better. Even if she was thinking it, why say it. Like I said before, I think she thought it was a compliment. My cousin is also a lot more passive than I was at that age (I was pretty vocal and opinionated, needlessly at times, at 12 and 13). I doubt she's voicing any controversial opinions and like I said earlier, her grandparents who are raising her have taken it among themselves to gain acceptance in the white community by flaunting their money. Their thought pattern seems to go along the line of: well how do we get white people to like us and our kids? Obviously invite them over to our huge house make sure they know that we drive nice cars and that our kids do and take them downtown with us when we go buy expensive clothes (I'm not kidding here). They've bought into this "good/acceptable Negro" syndrome, and unfortunately they are dragging my cousin into it. If they hadn't she would have immediately questioned her "friend's" statement.
Just a fantastic, provocative post. You really are outdoing yourself.
I find myself leering at women's asses all the time because there just seems to be so many absolutely spectacular ones out there. And while I often I have the reaction that what I am doing may be inappropriate or certainly objectifying I never consider myself sexist. And maybe that's me. Maybe I can't face it. Like these racists you speak - not sicking the dogs on anyone. At least I'm not raping and/or denying any women of a job etc.
And I can't think of female asses and the show Mad Men at the same time without thinking of the character of Joan and the way her ass has almost become another character unto itself. Joan is also swimming in that sexist sea - knows she has an absolutely spectacular ass, and works it. It would seem they certainly know how to shoot it.
'Shocked' in the above line that you quote is also such an exquisite word choice. Perfect. Mad Men is the best. Maybe even better than The Wire.
Excuse me - 'shock'.
'Outdoing' isn't right either. Just getting better - is what I meant to say.
"'Shocked' in the above line that you quote is also such an exquisite word choice. Perfect. Mad Men is the best. Maybe even better than The Wire."
I believe a statement like that would require its own thread...
I don't have the time while at work to add to this comment thread in the substantive way I would like to, but I simply have to marvel at how consistently excellent these comments-based discussions are. I can't think of another blog that comes close. How do you do it, TNC?
I don't have a life. I raise my kid. I love my woman. I write, and do all the things necessary to write. (read, go to the museum, take walks etc.)But there isn't much else. I don't have TV. I drink in moderation. And I rarely go to the movies. Outside of writing, warcraft is my only vice.
Thanks for making me hate being a lawyer that much more. Really, I appreciate it.
Argh. Ditto for me.
Also, you probably make about three times as much as me. Money is not to be dismissed. Especially when it goes to supporting a family.
Ditto for me too.
Sounds like a life to be envied to me.
It's not that hard to have it. Drop out of college. Have a kid when you're 24. Move to New York, with kid, on you're woman's meager salary of 30k a year. Freelance for publication that only other writer's read. Have consecutive years of making somewhere in the neighborhood of 5-7k. Deliver food for an Italian deli in Park Slope for awhile. Oh, and don't marry your woman. Be loyal in all things, but don't marry. Follow those steps and you too can have no social life.
All jokes aside, thanks I appreciate it. I have a long post on how school shaped me coming up. I think there's something to be said for failing at functioning within established systems. Especially if you're raised in a stable situation where doing things like going to jail aren't really an option. You have to find a way. You don't much choice.
(replying to Ta-Nehisi)
whether it's to be envied or not, thank you so much for sharing the fruits of it with us. It is such a privilege to read you.
In the end, this is the problem with all discussions of these types of labels. I came to the “Not a racist but…” thread long after comments had been shut down. It’s better off. I’m not sure that I had much to offer that conversation. I think you’re probably right that most of the ire that came out of that conversation was largely motivated by a semantic or conceptual misunderstanding of what racism is. As a white guy, I could easily expand the definition of racism to include far more than 40%. I don’t think my mother is a racist, but if we were to do this or that to the definition, then… Personally, I don’t think that my definition includes all of the subconscious prejudices that I assume most people develop in their lives through specific exposures (or lack thereof) to particular groups of people. I could broaden my definition to the point at which I would have to honestly call myself a racist, I suppose. I don’t think that I would, but maybe I would fall within the realm of your 35-40. I’m pretty confident that I wouldn’t, but really, whether I would or not isn’t the point.
I think you’re generally right, though. But I don’t know whether it’s our dialogue/vocabulary that is limited, or if it’s our capacity to have patience with one another. More or less, even when things get heated here, people are generally respectful to one another, but—and I hope everybody will forgive the generalization—I think people tend to not make the full attempt to empathize, to honestly attempt to intellectualize opposing points of view. If I have a reputation here at all, (or in real life, for that matter), it’s likely that of a contrarian. Maybe I put too much emphasis on empathy (this is not meant as a John Edwards style, “I care too much about helping people” type of statement); I get the reputation of somebody who is only interested in having an argument for the sake of an argument. On some level, there is probably truth to that, but the greater truth is that I think some arguments deserve to be understood, if not agreed with, but I don’t know how to reliably strike the proper balance of debate any more than most anybody else.
In the end these are conversations that need to be had. And while the conversation starters oftentimes tend to become distractions in and of themselves, we have to remember that the real discussion is specifically about our limitations as human beings. To paraphrase Harry Callahan, we have to know what our limitations if we're to have any hope to one day transcend them.
I think the part of the other thread that might have caused some gnashing of the teeth was the placing of the onus on whites. This might not have been fair, because almost everyone, regardless of race, harbors racist thoughts and attitudes from time to time, unconscious or not, but it served the purpose of making a greater point BECAUSE that sort of subtle racism in whites supports institutional racism.
Like many other commenters, I'm a big fan of Chapelle. One of the bits he does is about Indians aka Native Americans. Honestly, for me there are parts that are uncomfortable. I'm squirming in my seat at the same time I'm laughing my ass off. Dave is saying some racist shit about an ethnic group arguably at least as oppressed as any other. But he's making a larger point with his "dogging" of Native Americans and deconstructing racist attitudes in the process. He walks a very thin line but succeeds in both making his point and being freaking hilarious.
I think TNC is/was doing something similar. I personally thought the joke was funny, with the substitution of Al Sharpton for the crossed out black people, but for many people it fell flat. Whether or not the joke worked, I think TNC is to be commended for tackling a VERY difficult and sensitive issue head on. No reasonable person wants to be told that they're supporting racism thru their own subtle and unconscious racism, not even me. But it's something we all need to hear.
Oh, and here's Dave Chapelle's bit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHDrJriQlmM&NR=1
I certainly wasn’t offended when I read it, nor do I think I would have acted as much had I been around to make the comments. I may, as TNC put it, argue but not take offense. I think that you’re obviously right that just about everybody, regardless of how progressive and inclusive they are (and want to) be find themselves dealing with thoughts they’re not proud of and don’t want to have. In a way, this clearly relates to what TNC is saying about racism being “the accumulation of history and set of societal assumptions bearing down on us all.” It clearly is that. But we still need to determine how we’re going to define it if we’re going to throw around the term.
Personally, I do reserve the word for those who have genuine feelings of hatred or, at least, superiority based on race. For most other instances, while we may feel the need to call the thoughts (conscious or not) “racist” I generally think of the people as being racially prejudiced. I tend to think the word prejudice allows itself to be far more broadly defined. I also think it’s far more accurate. It includes people who make unfounded negative and positive assumptions based on race. It also can include all of the imperceptible anxieties that people of all races feel in dealing with somebody from another group, and people who simply get anxious when the topic of race is raised in conversation. Generally, I think people who are racist don’t care that they’re racists, while I imagine the majority of people with racial prejudices know that it is wrong to prejudge, and when they feel themselves doing it, feel genuinely guilty afterward. I think prejudiced people oftentimes take solace in their guilt as proof that they are not racists. I think that’s a fairly rational defense, actually. The problem comes when prejudiced people take pride in not being racist, as if it’s some sort of noble accomplishment. That pride, more than the previously described guilt, may be a greater sign of their own pathology.
I think that you’re right that white people are exhausted with the implication that all racism starts and stops with them/us, especially when they feel as if they’re on “the business end” of it more times than they can acknowledge in polite and progressive society. I would imagine that the implication that a plurality of white people are racists probably caused some to miss whatever level of jest was intended and take an unnecessary level of offense. I try to read everything here in the context of sort of long train of thought that is often raw, occasionally greatly insightful, but always open, honest, and meant with respect. In that context, it is difficult for me to really see how any of it is offensive, even when it sort of is. If that makes any sense.
I didn't read your thoughtful reply until just now, but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for sharing, especially this: "The problem comes when prejudiced people take pride in not being racist, as if it’s some sort of noble accomplishment."
"The racists, like the sexists, like the elitist, like the homophobe is very capable of seeing individuals, of seeing beyond their race, of even befriending them, and at the same time not challenging the history, the presumptions that the world has put on them."
Just curious about the antecedent there - the presumptions that the world has put on the racists, or on the minority? (Personally I can't see how you can extricate the one from the other, but I guess that's another story).
I guess my biggest problem with this is something like a "Racist Turing Test." If a person really believes that whites are superior to blacks (or vice versa), but is able to act in a way that's identical to a non-racist, is there really a difference between the two? Are we going after beliefs or behavior here? Beliefs and behavior obviously influence each other, but I don't see how it's anybody's business what a person thinks privately. That goes for me, as well. My friends and relatives can honestly believe I'm going to hell for not going to the right church all they want - as long as they treat me with respect when I talk to them, how does that injure me?
I understand your point, but I'm not sure your example of your friends' and relatives' religious belief is really applicable here, unless you mean that they think you are a condemned sinner who is actually, in this life and not the afterlife, inferior to them.
Nonetheless, while I would never say that they should have their beliefs policed, wouldn't there be less chance of them doing you some harm based on that belief if they didn't have it? What if their church changed its doctrine so that people who are not members no longer are consigned to hell? Wouldn't that be a structural improvement? Maybe after a generation, the members of that church would really consider you an equal, and any basis for an injury to you would be gone.
In race relations, we're not talking about the afterlife. We're talking about a long history of one group discriminating against another based on the other being inferior. It was the very fabric of our society for a long time. I think for most of our history, belief and behavior have been the same. Only now are they disentangling.
There would certainly be less of a chance of doing some harm if that happened, but I doubt that the Pope, the Southern Baptist Convention, and the LDS President would all collaborate on the issue. ;)
A little more seriously, I do realize that racist belief and racist behavior have been self-supporting for most of our nation's history. I'm approaching it from the standpoint of, where do we go from here? I think it's a lot easier for a society to change its behaviors first than it is to change its beliefs. Behaviors are easier to identify, and can be legal to regulate. It's possible to justify a change in behavior without telling people their beliefs are wrong. And once people get in the habit of acting in a certain way, after a generation or two, the belief starts to change.
For example, prohibitions on public lynchings and cross-burnings - the blatantly obvious examples that "don't happen anymore," justifying some continued racism - have been there for decades now. While TNC estimates that 35-40% of white people are still racist, that means 60-65% are not. I'd guess that number is a lot higher now than it was when they started the bans. Taken together, I think that focusing on the behavior gets us to a better place faster, and with less pushback and less anger on both sides in the interim, than focusing on the belief.
There's individual interactions and structural racism. A person might invite you over for the finest of mayonnaise-based meals and then turn around and support/seek to strengthen structures that would harm you or your children or grandchildren via tolerance for police brutality, support for the restriction of public services (lest Black people use them!), or the lowering of funds for public schools.
...or a million other things. I thought I should add that there's no specific set of policies that are good or bad for Black people (or anybody else. I imagine TNC and I would differ (I think I'm more liberal-liberal), but actions informed by the belief that a particular group is lazier, more violent, and/or dumber than the median will be harmful to said group.
It's the second part that is the real issue. The accumulation literally weighs on us, and makes movement and change very slow and painful.
I think it's the crux of race relations as overtly racist laws and policies have been repealed and reversed since the 1950s. There are those who acknowledge the accumulation of history and how inescapable racism presently is, and those who only acknowledge intentionally harmful speech or actions as racist. You can dodge a lot of responsibility if your standard is only not to set your dog upon a black person crossing the street.
I guess I'd point to the issue of moral failing as important as well. I tend to think that we in the United States have lost sight of the reality and omnipresence of moral failing, trying to divide people into 'saved' and 'damned' while losing sight of the process.
People tend to be terribly thin-skinned when salvation is at stake. Which makes it even harder to realize that living a moral life is a struggle and a process, not a state of being.
This and some of the comments (Sorn I'm looking at you) made me get teary. Heart-breaking, beautiful clarity.
Argh man. Telling it like it is. There is nothing worse than the "you're not realy black" line. Asians at my school would tell my black bf he was Asian because of his eyes.
Ok, I know it's a lot to ask to clarify or expand on something, but I do see a contradiction here that I think is at least worth talking about (although this post seems to gain 10 comments every time I refresh it, so who knows)
So there's this in the beginning:
"'Get out of here and move forward. This never happened. It will shock you how much it never happened.'
This is not good advice for being a better person. But Peggy doesn't want to be a better person. She wants to be equal. Equality, for her, is the right to be as craven, as ambitious, and power-hungry as any man. In that business, forgetting is essential."
which seems, to me, somewhat contradictory to:
"I always shudder when I see people looking for me to talk them out of their racism. I'm always deeply suspicious because what attracts them is this kind of thread, not this kind. They're not so much interested in how we got here, and what it means, as they are in how quickly they can get out. They're tons of writers who are attacking the question from that angle. In the business of race, gender, class--really anything--let me never become one of them."
I don't doubt the importance of acknowledging how we got here; it just seems to contradict that first quote, so I'm kinda curious about the decision to include it.
I'm not understanding. Clarify the contradiction, if you have a moment.
The way I see it, "acknowledging how we got here" is the opposite of "forgetting is essential." Acknowledging how we got here, to me, is the process of remembering racial injustice in the past (such as with the ongoing Civil War posts) in order to have a more clear understanding of where we are now. That, to me, is very noble, and it's one of the reasons I come here. To me, understanding the past actually pushes us towards equality.
However, you seem to say that "forgetting is essential" to achieving equality--at least for the character, but I read it as I stand in for someone whose "-ismed." This to me is what we see in opposition to affirmative action for example, or "colorblindness." So I guess I want to know how both can be true, or if I misread that.
dan w, try reading it again with the idea that forgetting may be essential to achieving equality in a sell-your-soul field like corporate advertising but not so good for racial equality.
I can definitely see what you're saying, dmf, and this is what I thought about initially. I'm thinking of the scene in Weeds where Conrad is trying to get a loan from his friend to set up a grow house, and the friend's voice immediately changes when a white guy comes in the room. The problem is the dichotomy between overall racial equality and the individual success of a person that happens to be a minority.
I guess I'm an optimist, and I would hope this isn't an either/or issue. I can see how it could be. I'm just not comfortable with the idea of never achieving racial equality but remaining honest about the past. Maybe that's for another post, but I am still curious about the decision to juxtapose the two ideas.
Forgetting is essential to Peggy because of who she wants to be--it isn't essential to life, period. It was a commentary on her character, not a statement about the world.
My perception of those phrases was that "forgetting is essential" to becoming "equal" at grasping power and running roughshod over anyone who got in your way. It's not the kind of equality anyone with even a crude conscience would want (and a functioning conscience would be one of the first things they need to forget ever having). It's becoming "equal" to consuming serial adulterers like JFK, "equal" to bloody empire carvers like Genghis Khan, "equal" to sociopaths like Don Draper. To be equally as "great" and "successful" as such people, you'd be well advised to forget all hints of vulnerability and interdependency.
On the flipside, making an effort to immerse yourself in history, to see the breadth and depth of the Amazon that's hurtled you forward, will as a necessary consequence make it difficult if not impossible to ever become the equal of great men whose every ascending step crushed the skull of some inferior they couldn't be bothered to consider.
Late to the party, again, but to me that line of Draper's - heart stopping as it is - stabs at the fulcrum of the essential shift from the self-centered-ness of youth to the context-driven perspective of adulthood. "It will shock you how much this never happened" drives at the surrender of a first-person narrative and the pursuit of the more truthful comprehension. It shocks you because you come face to face with the fact that the most shattering moment of your life can pass without a blip.
Of course, this refracts the light of race/sex/gender/class roles, too, in a hundred ways. But without that shift out of the first person, there's no hope for progress, right? I mean progress in the individual as well as the societal sense.
"I think a lot of my white readers think of white racism as a moral failing, not the accumulation of history and set of societal assumptions bearing down on us all"
If I may offer a slight twist on this: I think part of the problem is that racism actually is discussed in the context of history but also *the past*. The way I learned about "racism" within public school was in discussions of the civil rights movement and that "back then," racism meant Bull Connor and the March on Selma and "I Have a Dream." It was all black and white reels, i.e. ancient history, at least by the standards of American amnesia.
Racism certainly was NOT discussed in terms of the present, even if the roots of racism extended to the same past that the CRM belonged to. We didn't discuss red-lining or White flight. We didn't discuss deinsdustrialization and urban renewal. The concept of "race" itself was framed to be an anachronism. The belief in "post-raciality" began long before Obama.
Therefore, the predominant idea of "racism" went back to the Klan or people protesting the integration of Southern schools. And given that I grew up in the Northeast and California, it was easy for people around me to talk and frame racism in those terms since that meant we'd be talking about "other people," never ourselves.
However, it doesn't take much additional learning/schooling to understand that racism is more pervasive, more complex and more quotidian than men in white sheets. It's something you can explain to most people (albeit, those with an open mind) in a couple of hours - the evidence is so overwhelming, so obvious - that I think it can help transform people's basic awareness around how to think and talk about race.
Personally, I recommend Part 3 of "Race: Power of an Illusion" a documentary series that public television produced in the '90s. Not only does it discuss the legal history of race in America, but the second half looks at the role of racism in home ownership and what the accumulated effects have been.
Great point. Discussion of racism ended with the 60s in my CA public school education.
Co-sign the "Race: The Power of an Illusion" recommendation.
Excellent show...
Here:
http://newsreel.org/nav/title.asp?tc=CN0149
I think it's interesting that, as you get older, you realize that 30 years ago is nothing. 30 years? That's a blip. So when people talk about racism being eradicated, yet we know that institutionalized racism was not only legal, but state mandated, it really changes the way you look at things. I'm probably not being very clear on this, but I was born in 1982. When you learn about MLK, or Jim Crow laws in grade school, that seems like a whole different world. It's only later that I realized this was only a little more than a decade before I was born. Crazy.
Stacy: "we know that institutionalized racism was not only legal, but state mandated"
I'm glad you raised this point because I didn't hammer it home enough in my own comment. Racism - as discussed in the American educational sphere - is almost always portrayed as something that individuals are guilty of. Even the Klan is seen as "men in sheets" but somehow, the organizational quality of the Klan - let alone its tie in with prominent public figures who were members or at least, tacitly supported them - is never raised.
In short, we don't discuss institutional racism in schools because to do so would mean 1) acknowledging the *present-day* manifestations of racism in education, health care, criminal justice, housing, employment, culture, etc. and 2) it widens the circle of complicity beyond just rabid KKK racists and instead, forces people to have to consider - if not acknowledge - their own racial privilege and benefit, what George Lipsitz has described as the "possessive investment in Whiteness."
To me, this is one of the most pernicious qualities to racism in our society - it grants the privileges of race without requiring that the beneficiaries acquiesce (thus, removing the onus of responsibility and accountability, i.e. "hey, I didn't ask for these privileges!") BUT, at the same time, it's such an invisible process (precisely because we DON'T talk about it) that people are absolutely loathe to acknowledge that privilege, let alone take active steps to relinquish or challenge them.
I always find it interesting, for example, how the debate around reparations for slavery tends to be of a "why should descendants of slaves benefit?" vs. what should be the equally valid inquiry, "how have I or my family benefited from the legacy of slavery?" Americans are so used to NOT having to confront that latter question - because, indeed, it's never posed to them - that to even raise it is treated as an attack on their integrity.
Male privilege takes on similar attributes though I think even most men would be willing to acknowledge that their male-ness affords them privileges in ways that most Whites have a far harder time accepting, partially because, as people have noted, the conventional definition of "racists" equates the term with "trolls under the bridge".
I disagree however that we need a new term. It's not the *word* that's the hang-up.
Meanwhile, as a child, this is where my liberal Democrat parents took us for family outings.
http://cache.virtualtourist.com/3685657-Georgias_Stone_Mountain-Stone_Mountain_State_Memorial_Park.jpg
Definitely never made it past the 60's in school either so I too wonder what affect that that has had on our perceptions of race in America. TNC is right about it being perceived as a moral failing and that could be in part because it has always been explained through the overly simplistic narrative of good vs. evil. The overt racism always makes headlines but the day to day slights are somewhere in the fine print.
And TNC I still don't know what to do with the condescension I got from the Jack and Jill folks. And that was back in college. More years ago than I care to admit.
Great post. I was definitely one of those people you mentioned. And I think the question becomes how does it change the way you racism when you realize it's a by-product of history and culture.
It struck me after I spent some time in Cuba, that an island whose revolution supposedly eliminated the structural instances of racism was also one of the most openly bigoted societies I'd ever come across. It's much easier to eliminate the structural biases than the cultural ones. Where does this leave us? How do we progress?
How do you fight a war against slurs made in private company, and jokes at dinner parties? How do you respond to this type of racism without turning the one responsible into a stock character?Respecting them as a human being that probably does have black friends.
Maybe I'm rambling a bit, but I haven't stopped thinking about this stuff since last week.
Cuba is a conundrum to me. I can't tell if they're so post-racial that the comments are sort of jokes, without real meaning, or if they really are pretty racist, despite the fact that they live in a rainbow of colors and have friends all along the spectrum.
They're definitely pretty racist. I remember the lady that ran the casa particular I stayed at wouldn't even let a black friend into the house. I had to go meet him on the porch to talk to him. And the most common joke I heard was that "Busca Negro"—it's a pun on bucanero brand of beer—was the official beer of the police (because they're always looking for black folks).
Of course here I am generalizing about a whole country from my experiences with just a hundred folks over a period of 5 weeks. I didn't mean to imply that everyone in Cuba was racist, just that bigotry and racism weren't really hidden. They were pretty wide open about it.
And the funny thing is about a place like cuba, is that racism is still denoted by skin color. Those that are lighter skinned are considered "white", even though many white americans wouldn't consider that the case.
True. There is quite a lot of structured racism in Cuba (not too many black people in seat of government, for example). It's interesting to reconcile that with the high level of interracial mixing on the island. I also don't know if it's the influence of the US but the blacks in Cuba, or the ones I met anyways, are developing consciousness about race in a way that is ahead of Latin American countries like Brazil.
A lot of us walk down the street and look at everybody and I think most of us pretty much dismiss most of the people we see and save more of our pondering and projection for just a few of a type that we like to dwell on.
you are up front about the butts you spend too many extra split-seconds on, but what about the quick assumptions you make about others (if you do).
Do you assume middle aged white men or women aren't going to have much in common with you? Are there folks that look a certain way at a book signing or just anywhere that you are quick to label well-intentioned but open yourself less to than another?
we are a funny species in that we take in immense amounts of data visually and behaviorally and fit it into the million cultural experiences we've had in astonishingly different settings (with family, at school, in relationships, work, sports, riding the bus) and we make synaptically quick judgements that would offend almost anybody we have them about if shared openly. I'd wager your wife doesn't want to know every perception and conclusion and assumption you make around her. I know my marriage wouldn't survive that outpouring on either side. So then why wouldn't even a generous well-intentioned blog discourse get out of hand quick?
The most difficult thing about the comments area of your blog is that everyone is so quick to pay you tribute, tell you how brilliant you are, how well said everything is. I feel as though I'm in the court of the King Louis the sun king sometimes, or limbaugh's ditto land or Mike and the maddog's longtime/first time's sports radio sycophantic world. I hope it doesn't ruin your writing. It would ruin most people. Maybe that is an important part of the reasoning for why Andrew doesn't take comments
I don't see recognizing good work as necessarily sycophantic.
The point you're making is that stereotypes are nothing more than mental shortcuts is true. It's also true that different races have different genes that bely different advantages, however slight (if you base race on geographic origin instead of social construct). But, that's not what this post is about in my opinion.
It's acknowledging the fact that people are more complex than a single action at a specific place and time. Someone who is racist may also have friends of another race. They may even favor specific individuals from that race (watched gran torino last night and it seems like a good example). But, they still harbor ill feelings to the race as a whole, and although there will always be exceptions that they acknowledge (he speaks so well)—there will also be a whole large group of people who are demeaned merely for the color of their skin, the shape of their eyes or the type of sex organ they were born with.
The fact is, there is a tendency to underestimate racism just because it's not always about attack dogs and fire hoses. It's more subtle nowadays. It's offhand jokes at dinner parties, and demeaning stereotypes of people that's only basis is commonality of their skin color.
Let me also correct myself before someone else does. Racism was never just about attack dogs and fire hoses. Those were the exceptions, not the rule. It was always more subtle than that, but I would argue that it's even more subtle today than it was in the past.
Yeah, I do think there’s a bit too much of that in general. I don’t want to call the people here sycophants, because I don’t think that’s it. I think people tend to come to this blog because there is a wider scope of true dialogue in the comments section. TNC plays a much more active role in his comments, and he seems genuinely more engaged with those in the talkbacks than you get at a lot of other good blogs. I think a lot of people may feel the need to pay too many compliments too often, but what are you gonna do? I think they’re less sycophantic than they are generally appreciative of the whole construction of the blog. Of course, it can get the feel of being a circle jerk now and again, but that happens whenever like-minded people show up to talk about stuff on the Internet. I think it actually happens a lot more often elsewhere.
I notice that I make no reference here to a genuine appreciation of the work TNC puts in to the initial posts. I hope that was implied.
It is. It's a structural flaw. I set out to chase out trolls, and to make the comments smart and incisive because I hated virtually all comment sections on blogs. That has side effects--among them, you end up squelching dissent. This is harder to get around then you'd think. Ideally, I'd have a bunch of Doug EMI's running around. (Having seen him much lately.) But people get tired of playing the David Brooks role.
I'm frankly stumped by this one. Another blogger will come along and figure it out. As for being ruined by compliments, I don't think so. I know how quickly it all can bad. I've already seen it go bad before.
BB&TNC, this seems to be getting to the problem of such "open" exchanges. While the access/democratic value of the public square is high there is always the danger of losing focus/quality. I have stopped reading A.Sullivan, after being a fan for many years, because he has gotten into several ruts in his themes, and somewhere not too long ago here the number of people that seem to be posting shot up in ways that at 1st added to the number of differing voices but seem to be collecting in a kind of fish-school pattern. These convergences of opinions may not be related but my guess is that there is some kind of social-networking pattern at work here that is as T says a structural flaw. How to balance gatekeeping with inclusivity may be a good topic for another thread so I'll head myself off from jacking further.
I just want to affirm that I think the alleged "sychophancy" is appreciation. TNC does a bit of the same "sychophancy" bit with his commenters - but it's earnest because he doesn't just stroke his commenters, he engages far more than I would reasonably expect him to. And I think while there's a lot of stuff that may sound too much like a lovefest, it yields a comments section ang "blogger-commenter" relationship that obviously serves everyone well and is clearly appreciated. Sometimes my own reaction is that TNC intervenes a little too much, sounds like a bit of a scold occasionally, etc. etc. But overall, what he does - the balance he's created - is working. He deserves an enormous amount of credit for creating and taming a corner for civilized, yet contentious and engaging, discourse on the internet. No mean feat...
I know I'm no DougEMI, but if it'd help, I could try to amp up the contrarianism. That is, if everyone will promise not to accuse me of being unscrupulous.
At the same time, I'm here because I like reading this blog. I'm less likely to disagree with him because he's a good writer and makes interesting points. About the only time I can think of where I disagree and don't engage is when Michael Vick comes up. And how often is that?
Engaging in critical dialogue can be frustrating, exhausting, often fruitless. Dealing daily with an endless barrage of uncritical thoughts and actions can make one cynical, angry, depressed, a bit soul damaged. The value of a good circle jerk should never be underestimated. No rule that it can't be reflective as well as pleasurable.
I could say a lot more, but aspects of this post really bothered me. Here are some real examples of everyday sexism that are not just looking at a woman's ass.
1. Men telling strange women on the street to smile. "Smile honey!" You're commanding a woman you dont know anything about to look the way you want, because it will make her prettier, and nothing could be better than being pretty, right?
2. When its assumed that women are always dieting, always interested in losing weight, always pre-occupied with their bodies.
3. News sites like the Huffington Post that post pictures of nip slips and Emma Watson's dress being blown up all the time, proving your body doesnt really belong to you if theres a photographer there and it increases web traffic.
4. How marriage status and children always seem to be the focal point when discussing a woman in public, i.e. Sonia Sotomayor, Regina Benjamin, Janet Napolitano.
If you really think that there are people who only associate sexism with rape, I think you're wrong. If looking at a woman's ass is the best example of everyday sexism that you can come up with, then you don't really get it. If you don't really get sexism outside of rape or overt sexual harassment, then don't conflate it with racism here. Its hurtful and it muddies your message.
@LCrawfty
TNC can speak for himself, but I doubt that he would disagree with you that all four of those examples you listed are forms of sexism we see every day. I think he was just using the "looking at women's asses" thing as an example of something HE catches himself doing sometimes--and that he's as guilty as any of us of small daily transgressions against another sex, race, class, whatever. There can be a continuum of sexism--as with racism.
And, re example #1, I HATE it when men tell me to smile on the street. It's invasive, demeaning, and there's no perfect response. If you ignore them, they act like you're a bitch or all hoity-toity (sp?). If you respond with a smile, you open yourself up to more harassment.
Yeah, but who cares if a guy like that thinks you're a bitch? Especially when his idea of a bitch is a woman on the street who doesn't smile for a stranger.
I'm actually not familiar with the 'smile, honey' phenomenon that you guys are describing. Maybe it comes from older guys?
Very true. Just enervates. And I think it tends to be older men. Doormen are really bad. And construction crews, of course. But it's not at all limited to those men--they just have more time for overt lady-watching.
I`m not saying he would necessarily disagree with those examples, but as for the example he provided, its a weak example. I believe if he thought about himself in respect to everyday sexism more he could come up with a better example than that. "Just looking" as an example of true everyday sexism makes women sound kind of ridiculous and undermines the whole problem. It also allows people on here to boast about how they do the same thing. On the whole, the love fest surrounding this post in particular kind of surprises me. I would have expected less fawning responses.
I don't think you grasped the post. I wrote this:
You took it to mean this:
I'll take the L here--the "Perhaps they do" part could be confusing. The argument is that sexism is obviously more than that, which you can see by my comparison to the idea that racism is only siccing dogs on kids.
The "Perhaps they do" was a nod to how much violence and power actually plays into notions of sexism. Sorry if it was confusing.
"I would have expected less fawning responses."
When I compliment TNC, it's not because I'm trying to butter him up. It's because when I respond, it often includes judgment- I think you're wrong, you're missing the point here, the way you connected those things is right-on- and why not include the positive judgments? In real life, when I tell people I appreciate what they've done, I rarely get the idea that they knew that already. I think it's a good thing for the world to show appreciation when you've been moved, provoked, enlightened, warmed, stretched. And appreciating one another is part of maintaining a civil society- no mean trick in a comments section on the internet.
I mean, what is TNC gonna do for me if I fawn over him enough? Give me a pony?
B&R,
I don't think the act of complementing or fawning is wrong itself. From my perspective TNC has written much better stuff than this post in the past two weeks that haven't received nearly as much praise. Personally I didn't see the opening as going to well with the overall point. I think a deeper point could have been made, and I expected there to be one judging by the title. From the the first couple of paragraphs, I thought this was going to be a discussion about 1)how far one should take racial dialogue 2)how honest can we really be about our past racial injustice or 3)some sort of reflection on the limitations of comparing sexism and racism.
I don't want to be crude, but this post seemed to turn into a reflection on the banality of racism; that while our image of a racist a southern, two-toothed white guy, racism perverts much of America, specifically white America. I don't take issue with pointing that out; I'd go back to that 35-40%, and I think there's a lot of truth. If it's not full-blown racism as most of us know it, it's more implicit. And again, that's obviously not good. I just think that issue is talked about all of the time here, so I don't really understand the outpouring of praise.
Now obviously I love TNC as a writer, and really appreciate the work he puts in here. It is definitely a good thing to show appreciation. I just don't know if this post in particular was really one that earned it as much as some of the others.
". . . there's no perfect response."
Just say: "Its kinda hard to when I'm lookin at your ugly ass."
Oh, someone else suggested that I reply "tell me a joke" when men say that to me. But you have to be careful, I've had men pull cars over to scream at me when I've had the nerve to say anything back to them when they were harassing ME.
Another one of my learning monets came when I was reading "The Gift of Fear". It referd to a survey that asked men and women what they were most afraid of when meeting a person for a blind date. The number one answer for men was that they were afraid they would be laughed at. The number one fear of women was that they would be killed. It is a glaring asymetry of fear. Reading that book made me re-evaluate my interactiosn with women and change some behaviors that were posibly frightening them.
Is there really an epidemic of men telling women to smile on the streets? That happens? Those guys, whoever they are, sound like assholes.
Yes, there's a lot of men who do this, and other variations on it, its not just a small group of assholes or old men. These guys walk around thinking they're improving these women, improving the general attitude, helping somebody snag a husband, its bad.
I got the perfect response, but I can't share it here.
I learn something new every day. I had no idea that there were guys walking arround telling woment they did not even know, "Smile honey." That would piss me off sexism aside. I do not even like people telling me to, "Have a blessed day." I like a cheerful hail or fairwell, but object to being told how I should feel or act.
That is exactly why it pisses me off. I walk my dog after sundown because I get tired of being honked at or yelled at or even having men slow down to talk at me (which is actually pretty frightening).
Point # 3: I don't think huffpo has been the same since they completed their merger with TMZ.
It's worth talking, not to me, but to black people who were really raised as minorities, blacks who grew up in white neighborhoods, and went to white schools. It's not the "Nigger, I hate you" stories that you hear--though there's some of that. Instead you get their white friends telling them, "they're not really black." Or you get their white friends consistently trying to set them up with the only other black guy\girl in the school. (I'm sure some gay cats who've worked in offices, have similar stories.) But these people were their friends, they weren't awful people. And they weren't moral degenerates. A lot of em were the sort of friends you'd want in the trenches with you.
enjoyed the whole piece, Coates, but liked this.
As someone who has been one of ' few' Blacks in academia,beginning in Junior High, all the way to being ' the only one' in Graduate School - I hear you.
The ' I don't think of you as Black', is a worst insult than Nigger.
The person who says Nigger KNOWS that he's trying to cut you emotionally.
The ' I don't think of you as Black', will then try and argue with you for hours about why they're NOT racist.
Enough of those = why rikyrah no longer educates grown ass White folks. Why I'm NOT that Black Ambassador.
rikyrah I am all about this. You nailed it.
I had a twelve year old black boy tell me that he didn't think of me as 'white.' I think he meant that most of the older white people he knew were generally stuffy, uptight, or just not very cool. I simply said, 'thanks, but not all white people are as lame as your teachers.' Was that a teaching moment? I'm only asking this question half-jokingly.
It could have been. Comments like "you're not x your my friend" are a person's way of trying to reconcile the discrepency that exists between how a group of people are imagined to be, and how members of a certain group actually are.
Unfortunately many people aren't reflective enough to realize this.
As one of the white people who has said this in my ignorant youth I am glad that the person I said it to took the time to educate me and prevent me from repeating the mistake.
Rikyrah--as one of your fans at this site, I must say I've heard you explain this phenomenon that you won't explain several times now, each time a bit differently, always an exercise in cogency, and I never get tired of the new ways in which you explain it.
I've gone back and forth on being a Gay Ambassador over the years. Of course the situation is different. Anyone can find out at any time that their child, parent, friend, etc., is GLBT, and not know how to integrate that with their body of assumptions. As a general rule, a parent does not wake up one morning to suddenly find out their son is black.
I've felt "on" as an Ambassador for the past few years. I came to the conclusion a while back that the best way for GLBTs to achieve equality is to live open and honest lives whenever it is smart to do so. The cost to the psyche of doing otherwise is far too high.
Living an open and honest life wherever it is feasible to do so is truly a win-win situation: it is good for the psyche of the person doing it, and it is good for the community in which they find themselves.
First and foremost, thank you for this absolutely beautiful piece of writing.
I think the piece can be boiled down to this: unwitting racism is still racism.
Alternatively,
Racism is the compression of the paragraph of a person's life into a soundbite......
What Scorn said.
I should probably rephrase that. I don't want him to think I'm insulting him as a person. There was no scorn in that comment. I just wanted to point out, and perhaps I should have been nicer about it, --I will try in the future-- that it's rather insulting to say to someone:
"I beleive what you mean is this"
or
"Everything you just explained can be reduced to an epigram"
or
"This is what you said I know better than you what you really mean."
It's rank prejudice to believe that you can better summarize a point than than the person who made it. (Here is where I indulge in the same thing I just called out Hypocrisy much?) The implication behind such statements is that the person doing the "boiling down" is smarter than the person making the point because they can say the same thing using fewer words, bigger words, a more refined syntax, or better grammar.
that ain't always the case.
If dwb believes the major point behind what TNC is saying is that "unwiting racism is still racism" then he should say,
"I believe that the major point of the post is that "unwiting racism is still racism" or "I interpeted the post as meaning that "unwitting racism is still racism"
What was said was a fair point, how he said it was patronizing, and is a direct example of how someone can be well-meaning and patronizing at the same time.
Again let me reiterate that I have no personal quarrel or scorn directed towards the substance of comment, or the commenter. I just think that telling Mr. C. that
"I can boil down everything you wrote to 5 words unwitting racism is still racism" is a bit offensive.
It's tempting to think of racism as a kind of ignorance-- you think "They just don't know-- I just have to show them the truth, and that can't be so hard."
But think, an adult has gotten this far, and still doesn't know. There's some need being satisfied, there's something amiss, and there's something that's not your responsibility.
TNC,
Of the many true and graceful and authentic postings you have made since I started reading you several weeks ago, this may be the most sublime of all.
I enjoy the whole "outsiders posing as insiders" focus as well. So far, they show has represented the outsider feelings of homosexuals, Italians, Jews, men born of hookers and women. Tellingly, I don't think we've seen black representation of this feeling although Don referenced it in one episode (about a competitive ad firm that hired a black man). Paul's black girlfriend was there mainly as a prop for Paul and all the other black characters have been in service positions and not developed three dimensional characters. I think this is an intentional portrayal, to show how far removed blacks were from the process of assimilation that the other members of the marginalized groups could always embark upon to shed that "otherness".
As the show moves into the sixties (especially in a place like NYC), I look forward to incorporation of social conditions into the story lines, hopefully leading to the introduction of black characters and their development as full-fledged characters.
The above was supposed to be a reply to M.C.'s post below. I hit on the wrong Reply button.
I applied the same standard to "Mad Men" that I did to "Sex in the City", "Friends" and "Seinfeld." If, as E.L. Doctorow said so memorably and so often in "Ragtime" "And there were no Negroes" especially in places like say NYC, where there very well could have been, well I just wasn't interested. Yes, I give a pass to classic American movies of generations gone by, but not to tv shows made in the '90's. Now, thanks to TNC I'm going to have buy season one and watch season two of "Mad Men."
I'm guessing you love Larry David...he could have had one of those "shows with no Negroes" (actually he did with Seinfeld) but he went out of his way not just to include Negroes but to consistently allow them to make white folks - well, mostly him - uncomfortable and look foolish. Finally he just surrendered...
Incidentally, in "Mad Men" there's storyline that's a pretty stark acknowledgment of the "No Negroes" thing you'll probably get a kick out of.
One of the things I've always loved about Mad Men is the "outsiders posing as insiders" thing. Don Draper is the obvious example -- it's his story. But you've got women, closeted gay men, Italians, alienated sons, wannabe Bohemians, all wearing the slick clothes in the slick and extremely sterile environments. Pretending it's all real.
All of them, even the relatively rich ones, went through the Great Depression and World War II. They're in that strange little bubble of the late 50s and early 60s, after the constant upheavals of the early 20th Century but before the comparatively minor changes that got going in the late 60s. Some conservatives and sentimental Baby Boomers got their brains stuck in that period of time and have yet to get them out. But it's really very strange, both in comparison to what went before (flappers, Rosie the Riveter) and what came after. Mad Men portrays the strangeness very well.
Ta-Nehisi, I enjoyed this piece, and while I will disagree with your contention that the world is a less racist place (you can make that contention in regards to the US, but not the world), I think perhaps the most pertinent point you make is that there really is nobody who is not racist.
Anyone who alters their actions towards another as a result of a difference in race, which includes culture and creed, commits an act of racism, and by extension is shown to be a racist. This includes even a small hesitation before speaking, or the minutest pause before interacting.
Even if you are only reacting to the fact that the person is a stranger, or to their economic status, or the fact that they are intoxicated, or whatever other reason, if that person is of a different race/culture/creed, then racist motivations can never be fully discounted.
Can anyone in the world honestly have avoided ever acting in a manner that would fit this description? It's not impossible, but extremely improbable. Sure you might be as entirely at ease shaking hands with Al Sharpton as you would with Bill Gates, but what about someone who, to your mind, looks a lot like Osama Bin Laden? What if it's a Bangladeshi fisherman reeking of fish, with an open sore on their cheek? Would you be comfortable shaking hands then? If not, would the discomfort be entirely based on previous knowledge (the Bin Laden-ish fellow), or a reaction to non-racial physical factors like smell, or the perception of sickness?
Even if your motivations were entirely devoid of race as a factor, you could never prove it, and other people's perception of your motivations would never discount it.
Racism is an inescapable part of the human condition. Perhaps it is a result of evolution? Maybe those who did not react with suspicion and hostility to strangers, to those who were different, quickly found themselves extinct?
Who knows?
"Anyone who alters their actions towards another as a result of a difference in race, which includes culture and creed, commits an act of racism, and by extension is shown to be a racist."
I work in a doctors office that has a high percentage of elderly AA patients. I know that they have put up with much racist BS in their lives. (I once had a long time patient tell me that she likes the office better since they let her come through the front door now.) As a result I am formaly polite to them and will take more crap off them without objection than any other group. Is that racism?
I agree that we are all predudiced against something. Most of us against many things. But not every acknowledgement of race is racist.
My own personal most serious predudice is against self agrandizeing, 'I ain't nobody's punk', macho bs. If you act like you want me to think you are tough, I think you are an idiot. I am aware that there are some thoughtfull men frontin' but I do not wish to exert myself trying to sort them out from the idiot toughs.
I was in a car as a kid with my parents and my mom actually rolled down the window at like 5th and 54th and told a stunning young woman waiting at the crosswalk that she should smile, as if was a young woman's job and duty to smile, even while waiting at a corner in that crowded city. Why was it her job to smile? Why was it my mom's job to tell her what her job was? What a fantastic palace we've constructed for ourselves.
For all the reasons folks here seem to love madmen I find it unwatchable. tutors? yes. madmen? no.
Michael, a year and a half ago I was in an airport between flights, talking on the phone to a good friend of mine who had just found out she had an unplanned pregnancy. I was helping her think through all the options. And a man walked by me, as I was talking about this increbibly difficult topic, and ordered me to smile. I wish I could have made a snappy comeback, but at least I gave him my evil death glare.
Anyway, I appreciate your noticing how messed up a thing that is.
Not that I want to condone violence, but sometimes a right hook is an effective snappy answer.
There's always the raised middle finger.
I'm definitely loving this blog today. But one more comment and I need to get back to work.
On TV shows and their representations of American prejudice (and I hope not ruining it for anyone, I promise not to give anything away):
While self-described as much more of a 'popcorn' show (definitely lighter and more sensational) - I am finding myself fascinated by 'True Blood' and all that it keeps referencing in terms of questions of tolerance, sexuality, religion - sin and redemption - and history. Not as much race, though its still there. The fact that it takes place in the South and one of the lead characters - Vampire Bill - a white former human who actually became a vampire back during the Civil War.
And incredibly rich situation, and fun as hell.
Whole other thread I suppose.
I keep hearing this era of TV being referred to as a 'golden age' - like the movies back in the seventies. And I would have to agree. The great shows these days truly are that. And with a few exceptions the writing is just so much stronger than in movies these days.
Yes a whole other thread devoted to issues of tolerance and True Blood would be very nice. I love that show so much. It's campy and ridiculous but I think it hits home on a lot of issues.
I have never seen it but will look for it based on these comments.
I don't think that I am free from reacting based on race despite good intentions. Sometimes good intentions smell of condescension. I know I have been the person who says stupid things to their friends and acquaintances of color. I was wondering to a friend how we can be post-racial when we have been taught by our society to be consumed with race. My friend told me that I was contributing to the problem because I was thinking and talking about race at all. I thought that was easy for him to say. I think that you may have said this but asserting that our society is "post-racial" is a way of trying to get ourselves off of the hook. Problem solved. I agreed with your 30-40% estimate in your previous post. I know this bothered some readers. But the problem is that it seems all of your readers, regardless of their race, are here reading and commenting because they care about your perspective and discussing these issues. How do we get the rest of our society to start thinking and believing this discussion is important and necessary?
How do we get the rest of our society to start thinking and believing this discussion is important and necessary?
As we have always tried? The Oracle of Delphi. Ancient Greece's most important motive was summarized in only two words at the entrance:
Know thyself (γνωθι σεαυτόν)
To quote from Wikipedia:
Hey TNC. I won't congratulate you on another exceptional post even though I'd like to. There is enough of that here already.
It is amazing to me how you can translate your thoughts so coherently to the written word. I am envious of you.
But that is not why I read. I read because your are so thoughtful. Which makes me (and obviously most others here) try to understand ourselves better. Hopefully it also makes us re-examine ourselves and to share our thoughts and experiences as well.
Mine (and ours if I may speak for the group) ability to translate our feelings and thoughts to the written word aren't nearly as good, and when I try, it is never with anywhere near the eloquence you have... btw, you suck TNC. Did I tell ever tell ya? and so do you Sorn. If you keep it up.
So my thoughts today go here...
I congratulate myself on my upbringing which to me has always seemed so color-blind. I judge people not by color but by feel. How they present themselves, how confident they are within themselves, how curious they are to get to know me and other human beings...mostly, how they look me in the eye, extend their hand, and say, "Hi I'm glad to meet you..."
I know I have weaknesses, I know I am vulnerable to -isms. I don't think I classify them so quickly as you. I do fall prey to a beautiful woman and her body. I am not so quick to look away. Is that sexism? ok. You say it is.
Racism? I don't see people of color. But I respect "their color" (in my mind it is their culture not the color) behind people.
I feel as if I am not always welcome in situations. If a black friend of mine is in a group of people who happen to be of his same color (culture?), is it rascist of me to not join that group?
I have in the past thought yes that would be the impression and barged right in. Only to change that group dynamic. Always mostly in a negative way. In my white way I changed the group dynamic.
So I don't that all the time anymore. Is that thought of or perceived as rascist? Do you think of it as rascist? Me I tell myself I am being sensitive to the group.
I would like to be in that group, and as I have gotten to know the members of that group I would be included. But always with that changed dynamic.
Is that reverse racism?
I don't feel that way but maybe I my perception is wrong. I have always thought there are some situations and groups I just can't be in naturally. Now I feel from reading here that may be a rascist thought.
A question for you TNC, are there any groups of mixed color that you TNC feel completely natural in that include white people? A small number or is it a 50-5o thing?
Great post, TNC.
I believe in essential worth and humanity of all people, even those who can't see it in me.
BTW: Mad Men is #123 on Stuff White People Like. LOL!
"I think a lot of my white readers think of white racism as a moral failing, not the accumulation of history and set of societal assumptions bearing down on us all."
Maybe this is a separate subject, but this quote (and the speculation of the %s on racism) got me thinking...
1) how do blacks define "black racism" (those who think it's possible for blacks to be racist, that is. so, exluding the sistah souljahs of the world who have explicitly defended that blacks can't be racist based on 'power' definitions of the term - the term doesn't exist for them)? does "black racism" bear down on everyone as well, or is it more limited in its effects?
2) does the differential between the % of who is racist and what that group thinks the % is apply across various racial/ethnic groups? i.e., are whites more likely to undestimate how many whites are racist than blacks are to underestimate how many blacks are racist? or do, blacks, b/c they have historically suffered more from racism against blacks, more sensitive to the prevalence of racism in society than whites?
these last questions are important b/c they hint at intra-minority discrimination (blacks vs koreans, chinese vs vietnamese, minority vs immigrant) and the struggle to avoid falling into the traps of racism that not only are directed AT someone, but also directed BY that person.
Some very good points in this post about racism and how we demolish straw men to get ourselves off the hook. Definitions of racism are slippery and I expect everybody would define it for themselves in a way that puts them on the right side of the line. I'm sure Pat Buchanon would say he is not a bigot but that is ridiculous to those of us who like to think we are enlightened. Most of us will not take the next step and question our own assumptions and thoughts because we are obviously Right-Thinking Liberals and of course we are not racist. Baloney. It seems to me that prejudice is built into our brain on a primitive level; our reptile brain you could call it. Aspects of society like inequality, competition, and power take that prejudice and expand it to include a wide range of beliefs and actions that can be classified as racist. I think racism is sort of our default condition and it takes work and training to overcome it. In this sense your example of trying not to check out a passing women is apt. When you see that woman your primitive brain starts screaming at you and you have to figure out the best way to silince that voice. It is not easy. I try really hard to be aware of my prejudices but what I struggle with most is the split-second categorization of people. Let's say somebody wrecklessly rides their bike across an intersection without paying any attention. If its a white dude "moron" flashes in my brain but if it is a black dude it becomes "BLACK moron". If I take time to reflect on those thoughts I realize the stupidity and am ashamed but it is very hard to get rid of in the moment. This is a big problem because when people associate bad behavior of a black individual with blackness in general they will always be finding evidence to support their prejudices. I actually do obsess over whether I am racist on some level. More importantly I wonder if folks who have been on the business end of racism would consider me so if they could know what I am thinking. My best answer is...I certainly don't want to be and I am trying really hard.
I'm a 62 year old white male raised in the outback of rural Oregon. My family were good people, but to pretend I am without personal prejudice is to claim that environment has no effect on development. The best I can do is try to recognize my biases and take responsibility for them. To work hard at not passing them to my children, to constantly confront myself when no one else can because I hide it so well.
Sexist, you betch'ya, ask my wife. Not homophobic but in a "Must be natural because it's sure not a choice I ever considered!" way. Still can't get my head around Native American because the kids I played with while our parents worked the fields were Indians. I've got all kinds of "uncomfortable-isms", twinges at "the other", and I always feel superior when I slam the door in the face of some prostheletizer who wants to save my soul. Yeah, I can't stop at not being religious, I have to be antireligious prejudiced too.
I don't want credit for trying to be better because I'm not doing it for purpose, I'm doing it because I think it's the right thing.
So I'm a closet racist sometimes, in some circumstances, for some minutes. I'm ashamed of it when I recognize it but I can't claim it's not true.
Quick question regarding prejudice and religion; is it wrong to think less of someone for belonging to a certain relgion? I mean, that person is deciding for themselves that that is something they are going to believe. Can I not think less of them if I find their beliefs repugnant? Is that really so different than thinking less of someone for holding politcal beliefs that you find repulsive? I'm not so sure. I'm not suggesting treating someone disrepectfully, or discriminating against them, but can I not hold someone's religious beliefs against them personally?
This is the one I struggle with the most. I'm not sure now is the time to get into it, but it'd be pretty awesome to have a full post on religion and the limits of discrimination
I agree, Dan W., and I probably shouldn't have brought it up in this thread. But it's rare to be able to talk about it in mixed company, and the answer is not as clear cut as a lot of people like to believe. I asked the question, but I have two parents and one sibling who still attend Mass every Sunday, so I'm not one to get too worked up about it, but it is interesting.
Of course, it's always OK to disagree with someone's beliefs, even vehemently. On some level, depending on how you meant it, it's probably not an admirable practice to think of 'less of anyone' for anything, but we all judge others for holding beliefs that we find foolish or repugnant, and in this regard, religious beliefs are no different than any other kind. Except:
In America, at least, religion has traditionally been considered a private matter, such that disagreeing with one or another could be seen as no different than disagreeing with someone about sex. He likes to sleep with men: I don't. But what he does with his body is his business. Granted, sexuality is a desire, not a belief, but there are parallels to be made there.
Second, most religious prejudices, like most prejudices simpliciter, don't trade on the actual facts believers hold true so much as they do a set of myths about believers -- that Jews are greedy, Muslims violent, Catholics secretive, and so on. If you are going to disagree with someone about their religious beliefs, I think you have to be very careful not to allow these idle and prejudicial myths into your argument.
Finally, some religions, most prominently, for most of us, probably Judaism, function as both a collection of beliefs, and a racial or tribal or ethnic identity, and here you must tread very carefully indeed, for otherwise you run the serious risk of disparaging someone for his or her history, people, or family, as such -- that is, disparaging them for being Jews as an ethnicity (which is racist), when all you want to do is argue against Judaism as a belief system (which is not).
These can be very hard to disentangle. Some Indian tribes -- the Nahavo, for example -- may occupy the same middle ground. They have a tribe, and they have a religion, and the two are so closely interwoven that it can be hard to criticize one without criticizing the other.
You could also, of course, avoid many of these problems by thinking less of people who practice any religion at all, but since you spoke of a "certain religion", I don't think this is what you have in mind.
I think judging people because they're labeled 'Mormon,' for example, is bad-- there are liberal Mormons, believe it or not! Unless you belong to the Church of Fred Phelps, it's impossible to gauge everyone's character and beliefs on their religious label alone. So usually I base my judgment on who they are. If they claim they're bigots because they're Southern Baptists, well...they're bigots, no matter what.
I understand this, indians pronounced in dins with a slight, almost imperceptible, aspirattion and emphasis on the first syllable.
The best I can do is try to recognize my biases and take responsibility for them. To work hard at not passing them to my children, to constantly confront myself when no one else can because I hide it so well.
I think this is the best anyone can do.
The section of text above "I think this is the best anyone can do" should have blockquotes.
What this site elicits both because of Ta Nehisi's introspection and his honesty are honest and introspective posts. I tend to think that as long as the poster isn't so blinded by animus, even when tunnel vision comes into the discussion, even when at times the discussion goes sideways and into some thorny grounds, we can move it forward. I hear people talk about talking about race (and racial tension), but I don't hear it or see it much. Yet here, we have a collective discussion--some of us are blunt spoken, some fraught with clauses; some of us can be funny, some deadly serious. I cannot imagine how delicate the process must be moderating such a discussion, but I also want to applaud the courage of being able to withstand some cognitive dissoance and disagreement, to enable the ability for all of us to have a better, fuller perspective.
Of course, there are times when it serves no purpose to argue and reargue something with someone who just will not even acknowledge you; of course, it is hurtful to be forced to do so against one's will. But by and large, I find the discussions here, as much explorations as expositions, and to the degree we can keep this going, it will serve us well to whenever possible stand the heat. That does not mean necessarily being patient when there is no cause for patience, but at least to understand that sometimes we learn more from wrong headedness, even our own, than we do from being right.
I'm with you E but it's getting harder to figure out when to ignore, when to correct, and when to say amen. On the one hand one wants to be polite and helpful and engaged but on the other hand some of these endless threads are just turning into the kind of mutiple car pile ups that wake Cali highway planners up praying that it was only a dream. OK a little dramatic but really the amount of sheer repetition and back and forths that go round and round is creating not so much heat but just a kind of mass cacophony. Any suggestions on how we sort out productive conversations from people talking at each other?
I think you know the answer for yourself; I trust TN, because I read this site every day, also and more importantly because I find he has both the wit and just so amount of patience to sort things out. Despite the anonymity here, there are personalities--ie obvious persons, not just talking heads; TN's feel for that is part of what makes it work. Sometimes, like any good editor, he has to edit; sometimes he saves a decent person from making a fool of themselves in doing so.
no I wish that had been more of a rhetorical question but I'm really not clear here. I'm quite appreciative of T's formidable shepparding efforts but this seems to be a communal problem calling for communal solutions. Looking forward to seeing what T calls for here and how we can be of service, night.
This is why I closed the other one, it just wasn't very revealing. I'll deal with some of this tomorrow.
dmf,
If you find these threads to be redundant and unproductive, that is your opinion. Perhaps you are beyond a lot of this mess, some people may be benefiting from this. Let them speak their mind.
I am actually enjoying this opportunity to speak openly about race, knowing full well that any discussion of this matter will never be 100% polite, formal, and according to Robert's Rules of Order. I, for one, have learned a lot both from the intelligent posts and the ignorant ones.
I say don't try to control the cacophony - embrace it. Sounds corny, but here on this blog is a slice of our collective unconscious - expressed in an anonymously. I can tell a lot of people posting here have never really had the opportunity to discuss these matters openly, so of course some of them are confused and saying the wrong thing. Take this as an opportunity to correct them with compassion and understanding. I guarantee that will get you further than censoring.
Mr. Coates - you don't play a Rouge in Warcraft by any chance, do you? /em points wayyyy up
I think many of us hold poorly constructed grievences against those who are different. While we wouldn't admit racism, our aggression is directed in other ways. A good example of this exists within the debate on Mexican immigration. I recently wrote a post trying to deconstruct attitutes that justify redirected racism. Check it out if you are interested
http://bahaicoherence.blogspot.com/2009/07/deconstructing-negative-us-attitudes.html
Interesting, Jason. Under which heading does the Law and Order argument fall? The one that goes, "Illegal immigrants are, by definition, common criminals that deserve neither sympathy nor mercy. Because they are criminals, they should all be deported." Does that belong with the National/Cultural Justification?
When I hear that argument, I'm usually also hearing other arguments about Hispanic criminality, lack of morals, the transformation of our cities into 3rd World nightmares, etc.
I also hear a lot of existential fear, that Hispanics are a real and active threat to the very existence of our nation, that they are seeking to destroy it thru "subversive" organizations like La Raza.
When I say hear, I mean read. It is hard to tell how widespread these extreme ideas are, whether they are held by many or by a crazy few with lots of time on their hands.
I had to help register my son for his college classes and I cannot believe you had a Mad Men thread today! These are some very sterling comments, yet, as I recall, the last time, T-NC, you did a similar Mad Men thread (Joan's rape by her fiance' in Draper's office), it inspired my first post, so this was equally provocative.
This episode--which I watched 3 times now--blew the roof off my soul for 60 minutes. It was riveting. Still, I don't think Don Draper is merely viciously cold and calculatingly callous, although his behavior quite solidly exemplifies these attributes. I believe he had military experience, briefly alluded to in one episode, (I know it was in the book, The Best of Everything that the show is based upon), that augmented his put-up-and-shut-up MO. I also believe it is a coping mechanism of both genders after trauma. I know it was in my life surviving a violent crime 30 years ago. One keeps finding layers of one's self that were allowed to fall off so as to enable a forward motion in living, and they bring back over the years what was lost, as the facade softens. We need be patient with Draper; he is more human than we can grasp just yet, except that Peggy mirrors some layer of himself that he too lost long ago, and has tried to get back.
Frankly, I see Don and Betty as victims of societal expectations, much like Winslett and DiCaprio in Revolutionary Road, but much more sane. I am nagged by the premonition that Betty is restless, too, because she knows just how much of her life is fabricated by pretension, and she knows how to be warmer and softer as a woman, but is afraid to be vulnerable because she also knows her marriage won't afford her that luxury. Having essentially no trust in her husband, she is always in that emotional lighthouse watching him navigate in the still waters of midnight rambling. He loves her as much as he can anybody, but he doesn't trust himself, either. As easily as he slips into these sexual escapades, he pounces jaguar-like on one slip-up verbalized by his conquest, and Boom! He is on his feet, getting dressed, out the door.
On a couple of levels, Don Draper IS America. This country was built upon the idea that you can reinvent yourself and not be bound by your past. The election of Obama made any number of people think that racism is somehow "done". This attitude coupled with an ignorance of your country's history is a recipe for disaster. Gates getting arrested for entering his own house is the equivalent of Don's brother showing up at the office one day.
For those of you who think of the "assimilation" argument in Mad Men is a positive thing, remember the opening credits. The outline of a man in a suit is falling past a skyscraper, a la 9/11. Is he a suicide? Perhaps. Or maybe he is a victim of a disaster.
The question in Mad Men isn't so much assimilation itself, as assimilation TO WHAT. And whether it is a good idea or not. It's the kind of thing we ask about the banking industry nowadays, but in those days it was advertising.
Marcos El Malo,
I mentioned the Law and Order argument in passing ("I do think that there needs to be immigration reform that promotes both fairness and lawfulness, but when the emotional justifications against Mexican immigrants in general are deconstructed, it becomes hard to see how they don't arise from some point on the continuum of prejudice and even racism") but I probably didn't give it as much space as I should've. It probably would go into the National/Cultural justification, but I think it also can be deconstructed on its own terms. The question they have to ask themselves is: Are Mexican's genetically pre-disposed to crime? If not, then the problem aren't Mexicans themselves, but a problem with the system itself. I think a fair and lawfull immigration reform would do a lot to decrease crime and drug trafficing. Second, it is not clear at all that Mexican immigrants commit more crime on average than anybody else. In fact I think the opposite could be argued, though I don't have any facts on hand.
I come at this days late and I apologize if it is dollars short..however when I read the following
I wanted to applaud you but add a little something. I being black and growing up in a white world had a slightly different experience. Being the only black girl in my class, I felt a little used. When we read "Things Fall Apart" and "Song of Solomon" and "Heart of Darkness"..I was the one who had to answer for all 'blacks'. When my 'friends' wanted to date black men, or find out all they could about them, I was the one who they ran to. I basically hooked them up. Yet I couldn't find a date to save my life.
It wasn't so much that they steered me toward black boys..they took them from me and none of the white boys wanted anything to do with me either. (Now I'm no ugly duckling either..) It's not exactly 'racism' it was just the 'cool' thing to do in the early 90's: to hook up with a black man. You couldn't really take one home though to mom and dad. Except my brother- he was light skinned, smart, baller and valedictorian. He was acceptable- as someone noted: the good negro.
He still is. He lives in that world. I ran as far as I could.
My second point, and this is off topic, but I wonder if people thought about what it is like for whites when they become aware of their privilege. I've read some comments of some whites holding some unconscious prejudicial ideas about minorities , but I am curious about what it is like to know that your status is seen as above others? (Like that girl who comments that her friend isn't like other blacks- she obviously was taught that she had the right to make that kind of judgement.)
A great article to read (though a little dated) is "Blinded by Whiteness: The development of White College Students' Racial Awareness" by Mark Chesler, Melissa Peet, and Todd Sevig. (2003) It is included as a chapter on this book called "White Out" by Ashley W. Doane, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva. http://books.google.com/books?id=IrwSxxoM0MMC&pg=PA215&lpg=PA215&dq=Blinded+By+Whiteness&source=bl&ots=5eueM5E4GZ&sig=7AUfupIrqB79uXnloCGlj69Ax34&hl=en&ei=R-lnSoDaD4z0sQPM-JG1Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3
--Sorry about the long link. I thought it would be interesting idea especially since some where talking about having an understanding of other people's point of view. It seems that the topic of conversation is always about how we are pointing out how 'wrong' whites are in their thinking about minorities. But wouldn't it be interesting to figure out how these ideas are made and figure out how to change it from there? This chapter gives us some ideas, although it probably isn't the universal experience of all whites.